On Wed, Dec 08, 1999, Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
|
| On 1999-12-08 01:54:57 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
|
| > Or, if that isn't feasible for some reason, then developing a
| > stand- alone "fetchimap" program would be the way to go.
|
| You are free to write such a program, and you are also free to
| design a generic interface between mutt and external mailbox
| backends. Note, however, that just downloading messages into some
| local folder and using the usual mbox/maildir code is not an option.
Why not ...? That is exactly what folks using POP3 are being told to
do with fetchmail. Why the "double standard" for IMAP support?
| When designing such a generic interface, you may however happen to
| redesign large parts of what IMAP does.
I don't want/use/need IMAP, which is why I am tired of seeing mutt
get bloated with support for it (in contrast to the stated reason for
not improving POP3 support, and indeed efforts to remove it ... to
reduce "bloat"). What's good for the goose ...
I'm also tired of seeing useful things (such as the recently eliminated
M-flag) being removed from mutt "because they don't work with IMAP"
mailboxes. Etc.
Yet *useful*, *often asked for* features like compressed-folder-support
go wanting, and continue to require "third party" patches for support.
There's more, but I'll probably get flamed enough for the above
heretical comments ... :-) ...
/kim
