| |||||||||||||
muttmuttPosted Jun 17, 2004 15:34 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to mail clients: introduction by leonid Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to mail clients: introduction
I love mutt, but (last I checked) it doesn't work well for IMAP. It has
(Log in to post comments)
mutt Posted Jun 18, 2004 1:07 UTC (Fri) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link] Would a caching IMAP server fix your problems with mutt? It is a nice wayof giving lightning speed to clients that don't support disconnected IMAP.
caching IMAP Posted Jun 24, 2004 18:12 UTC (Thu) by nobrowser (guest, #21196) [Link] Hmm, what exactly do you mean by 'caching IMAP server'? I think thecomplaint was about mutt not caching _messages_, not connections. Which existing IMAP server actually caches messages?
mutt+offlineimap Posted Jun 18, 2004 15:18 UTC (Fri) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] You might find offlineimap useful. It's syncs (in both directions) between local Maildirs and remote IMAP. This lets you use mutt locally, yet still get a consistent view of your mail via the IMAP server when you need it. Here's a Linux Journal article about it by the author.
mutt+offlineimap Posted Jun 20, 2004 1:34 UTC (Sun) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] The author will probably come out of nowhere and flame me, but whenever I see a recommendation for offlineimap, I feel compelled to mention that, on two different occassions, offlineimap completely destroyed all my IMAP mailboxes and forced me to restore from backups. The author seems more interested in writing weird python user interface wrappers than in fixing the architectural defect which allows offlineimap to screw up majorly.
mutt+offlineimap Posted Jun 21, 2004 14:53 UTC (Mon) by BigNachos (subscriber, #1867) [Link] I don't think I've ever seen John flame someone, so I wouldn't worry about that.Have you reported your problems to him? I'm sure he would be very interested to hear about them.
|
|||||||||||||