On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:34:11PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> >
> > > if you'll look at my headers, you'll see that i'm using mutt as well
> > > as of now. its handling of large mailboxes does leave something to be
> > >
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:34:11PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> > > On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > > > hello, linuxers,
> > > >
> > > > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> > On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > > hello, linuxers,
> > >
> > > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands andten
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > &g
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, imagine your mail not being on a sleazy ISP, but rather on a server
> you trust (your own Internet-connected machine, you company's
> server, etc.).
I was thinking in terms of reading my mail off a server belonging to
an ISP, hopefully not sleaz
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> hello, linuxers,
>
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
>
> mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now,doe
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
> >
> > Ah
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, Orr Dunkelman wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
mailboxes":
> I believe that mulix talked about encryption (plain text = not encrypted).
> Thus, all the messages can be understood by the entire network.
Oh :)
Most IMAP clients/servers suppor
Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> I believe that mulix talked about encryption (plain text = not encrypted).
> Thus, all the messages can be understood by the entire network.
It depends upon how paranoid you are. In some cases encryption is not
need and it does slow things down a bit. If you want it, you c
On Sun 2002-02-24, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I use mutt too, by the way. It has no problems readying a 1000-mail folder,
> but it still takes quite a few seconds (because the folder is a sequencial
> file that needs to be read entirely - there's no "index" associated with the
> standard Unix mbox form
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large mailboxes":
> > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
>
> Ah? What do you mean imap is plain text?
>
> IMAP is just a protocol for
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
mailboxes":
> I never bothered exploring IMAP as an alternative to POP from my own
> mail reading. While mostly it was due to unwillingness to invest time
> and effort into this, part of th
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large mailboxes":
> imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
Ah? What do you mean imap is plain text?
IMAP is just a protocol for remote access to mail messages (IMAP="Internet
Message Access Prot
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> I suspect you misread the original posting, since mulix was
> specifically looking for a non-X MUA.
Sorry, I thought he said that he could not use an X based MUA as he was
connecting from SSH. If he tunneled his IMAP session via ssh the he would
have secure access to HIS
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you looked into IMAP? IMAP is a protocol that keeps mail on the
> server.
I never bothered exploring IMAP as an alternative to POP from my own
mail reading. While mostly it was due to unwillingness to invest time
and effort into this, pa
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 03:20:37PM +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> mulix wrote:
>
> > mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
> > it above several hundred messages), evolution, kmail, mozilla, any other
> > x based mailer. i read my mail over ssh frequently,
mulix wrote:
> mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
> it above several hundred messages), evolution, kmail, mozilla, any other
> x based mailer. i read my mail over ssh frequently, and an x mua is not
> feasible.
Have you looked into IMAP? IMAP is a protocol th
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:40:46PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> mulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> > of messages (think lkml archive).
>
> What do
mulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
What do you mean by "handle"? Like actually reading mail using it? I
use GNUS, which c
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > hello, linuxers,
> >
> > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> > of messages (think lkml ar
On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> hello, linuxers,
>
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
I'm using mutt. mutt supports many mailbox formats, but I use the
de
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "mua which handles very large mailboxes":
>...
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
>...
&g
hello, linuxers,
anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
of messages (think lkml archive).
mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
it above several hundred messages), ev
24 matches
Mail list logo
