On Sat 13 Oct 2012 11:16:56 NZDT +1300, Helmut Walle wrote: > Regarding the claim some made here that all email clients suck... > agreed, obviously with the one notable exception of pine / alpine...
Hehe, that pine in the a... is always the first thing I send to /dev/null. When downloading mail with fetchmail it makes no difference whether to use imap or pop. It's still what I do now. The upside is that I don't have to wait for my mail, the downside is that it wastes some bandwidth on the junk. The clear winner is that I care more about my time than saving my ISP a few kbytes of traffic. > Maybe a few more comments on pine: it is all text-based, and that > makes it lean, small and fast. Many moons ago I took one look at it, found that for saving 3 emails from inbox to a specific mail folder it needed the action 3 times, each time asking too many dumb things like whether I was absolutely sure, and have been axing it ever since. The mutt way was infinitely more intelligent: mark each message (1 keypress each), save marked messages (2 keys), select folder, hit enter. All you say equally applies to mutt as well as pretty much any other console based mail client. Big bonus: They also work over ssh. Mind you so does kmail, but only if you're desperate. The big K.O. for kmail is that the current version does not support local mbox mail spools any more. It may read it, but moves all mail into its own private directory with a billion files in it. Very inefficient, and that kind of vendor-lock-in is plain not acceptable, given that all mail clients suck. One of the pluses of mbox is that it keeps the mail arrival time (decent clients can sort by it - all the newfangled gui stuff can't), and using grep is possible. I've been recompiling the latest previous version of kmail since. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
