On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 01:54:57AM -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999, Brendan Cully ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> |
> | > Fetchmail I believe handles IMAP4 mailboxes quite well, why not
> | > advocate that fetching IMAP4 mail isn't mutt's job either?
> |
> | fetchmail doesn't handle IMAP4 mailboxes well. It can download mail
> | from your INBOX to your spool. That's it. Is that what you want?
>
> If you want more than that, then it seems to me all the IMAP stuff
> that's been added to mutt, should have more properly been directed
> to fixing/enhancing fetchmail itself, rather than bloating up mutt
> with it.
>
> Or, if that isn't feasible for some reason, then developing a stand-
> alone "fetchimap" program would be the way to go.
>
> I do know that I'm getting awfully tired of seeing seemingly endless
> IMAP specific code being added to (and thus bloating) mutt.
>
But in the long term I suspect that IMAP (or something like it) may
well end up being the normal/only way to store and retrieve E-mail. An
MUA that doesn't work work with IMAP4 will thus have no future. Quite
a few large sites (universities in particular) now deliver all their
mail using IMAP, it makes a great deal of sense in the sort of
situation where the user may run their MUA on any one of hundreds of
client machines. mutt would be useless in this sort of situation
without IMAP support and a fetchmail type of solution wouldn't help
either.
I suppose you could have a separate appliication, a sort of interactive
fetchmail for IMAP, to deal with the complexities of the IMAP4
interface. However this would still require some sort of interface to
the MUA which would, of necessity, itself be relatively complex.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
