On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 11:00:11AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 1999:
> > But both would have the same E-Mail address, with two accounts I can
> > have different E-Mail addresses for business and personal mail.
>
> With any modern MTA, it should be trivial to have two email addresses
> delivering to the same email account, and also to run some kind of
> filtering afterward so that the mails get delivered to separate folders
> according to which address they were sent, or some other criteria
> (admittedly filtering is not an MTA job, but starting a mail filter
> is).
>
The IMAP server I use is at mailandnews.co.uk, it's a free service to
anyone who fancies opening an account there. The chances of getting
them to set up two 'virtual' addresses to deliver mail to the same
IMAP account are, I suspect, just about nil. If I could find a
'normal' ISP who provided a good IMAP service with the sort of support
you are suggesting then I would go for it but I suspect there is no
such animal.
> > Also I already have twenty or so folders on my 'personal' mail IMAP
> > account and maybe ten or more on the business account. If I put all these
> > folders on the same account I'd start running into name clashes and such
> > (e.g. I have an 'Action' folder in both).
>
> These too could be solved by having "Work-Action" and "Home-Action" (or
> whatever) as names, it would be strange if these folders couldn't be
> renamed.
>
Yes, I could do that I agree, but it spoils the clean interface. :-)
> > I know I could use the folder
> > hierarchy to separate them but the Web interface doesn't know about
> > folder hierarchy (even though the underlying IMAP server does).
>
> Then that's a problem (lack of feature) with the web application...
>
Absolutely, but as it's a free service and just about the *only* IMAP
server I could find that provides what I need I'm stuck with it. If
anyone can suggest other publicly available (not necessarily free, but
not a silly price) IMAP servers then please tell me. I don't have the
luxury of a permanently connected commercial system of my own (or
where I work).
> > There
> > is also a 10Mb storage limit per account but no limit on the number of
> > accounts I can set up.
>
> That's just silly, why should it be possible to have 2 * 10MB limits but
> not 1 * 20MB? *shrug*
>
That's what I thought, I asked them about it and they said I could
open as many accounts as I liked with 10Mb allocation each. Accounts
which are dormant for > 6 months will be closed.
> > So, it makes much more sense for me to have more than one IMAP
> > account.
>
> Yes, we all work with the tools we have and even if there might be
> better ways of doing things, they might not always be available.
>
Exactly! :-)
> > That's fine if you only look at your mail from one location, as I said
> > the whole point of IMAP for me is its visibility from work, home and
> > anywhere else.
>
> Even though I've argued above that the limitations you have to work are
> somewhat silly, I do think you have a good point. It's entirely
> possible that a person has more than one IMAP server for mail, and
> making provisions for this in Mutt is a good idea. Then again, someone
> has to code support for that. As is typical with open source projects,
> if you want a feature, submit a patch for it. Otherwise, one shouldn't
> count on anything happening, even if opinions and suggestions are
> usually always welcome.
>
Absolutely, I'm not criticising, I'm just trying to add more input to
suggest directions for mutt to develop.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
