Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
2009/5/11 Ricardo Martins rica...@scarybox.net: I also found that I could read all new emails much faster in mutt than in gmail -- I just TAB my way around in each label/directory instead of clicking and scrolling. My muscle/finger memory makes me more efficient at using mutt than the web interface, that's all. Did you try enabling gmail's keyboard shortcuts? They've done a fairly good work on those ones. The only case where I don't suggest to use them is if you enabled find-as-you-type in your browser, which basically breaks shortcuts for *any* site. Also, sometimes (rarely, TBH) the actual browsing area loses focus, so you have to click inside (or press tab) before you can use shortcuts again, but that's a minor annoyance for me.
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
Oh, also. Uploaded an early version of a sup package to the AUR. I'll fix it up to be way more rocking soon. -AT
[aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
Well, I have all my mailing lists neatly arraged here and so on. They get filed to labels and archived automatically so that I can read them in a unified place. I'd have to change this up so that they go to the inbox, and that screws up my mail filtering in gmail then (afaik). It kind of forces me to compromise one way or another (either have the nice tidy thing in gmail, or the nice tidy thing on my one box, but not both). Since gmail offers it anywhere, I prefer to do it this way. Also, despite the mutt way being pretty nice and unixy (letting me script it easily into my window manager and so on), gmail just has an excellent interface with the folding, images, and so on. I hate to not use the classic mail setup everywhere, but it's just not as tidy anymore :/ What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise. -AT On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Ricardo Martins rica...@scarybox.net wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:05, Andrei Thorp wrote: Ah, I see. I've changed the setting in gmail to always use UTF-8. Guess that should take care of it. (Fyi, I use mutt et al at work, but I find it too convenient to have a well maintained online mailbox that I can access in many places) -AT What's wrong with mutt + offlineimap? That's what I use with my google apps mail account (this one). This way I can use both mutt and the webinterface. :) Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
2009/5/11 Andrei Thorp gar...@gmail.com: Also, despite the mutt way being pretty nice and unixy (letting me script it easily into my window manager and so on), gmail just has an excellent interface with the folding, images, and so on. I hate to not use the classic mail setup everywhere, but it's just not as tidy anymore :/ What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise. I use the gmail interface mostly but keep a backup using offlineimap. In principle it's possible to use mutt+offlineimap but with my slow internet connection it takes quite a while to sync; also offlineimap crashes quite often when trying to download attachments over 5 MB. Earlier I used fdm but that downloaded quite a few mails more than once. -- Abhishek
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
Excerpts from Andrei's message on May 11, 2009 about 4 PM: What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise. Have a look at Sup [1]. Cheers, Israel [1] http://sup.rubyforge.org/
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:30, Andrei Thorp wrote: Well, I have all my mailing lists neatly arraged here and so on. They get filed to labels and archived automatically so that I can read them in a unified place. I'd have to change this up so that they go to the inbox, and that screws up my mail filtering in gmail then (afaik). It kind of forces me to compromise one way or another (either have the nice tidy thing in gmail, or the nice tidy thing on my one box, but not both). Since gmail offers it anywhere, I prefer to do it this way. Also, despite the mutt way being pretty nice and unixy (letting me script it easily into my window manager and so on), gmail just has an excellent interface with the folding, images, and so on. I hate to not use the classic mail setup everywhere, but it's just not as tidy anymore :/ What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise. -AT I also have gmail filter my emails, set some labels and archive them and it works perfectly. offlineimap maps the labels to directories, so there's no local filtering to do and everything's in sync. I don't really understand what's the problem you describe. Here's my .offlineimaprc: http://pastie.org/474464 Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4 pgpZyFc26uKAH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
sup and offlineimap seem promising. I'll want to look into them more in the future. For the sake of discussion, what is it that you folks prefer about your offline setups vs gmail-in-browser? Cheers, -AT On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Ricardo Martins rica...@scarybox.net wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:30, Andrei Thorp wrote: Well, I have all my mailing lists neatly arraged here and so on. They get filed to labels and archived automatically so that I can read them in a unified place. I'd have to change this up so that they go to the inbox, and that screws up my mail filtering in gmail then (afaik). It kind of forces me to compromise one way or another (either have the nice tidy thing in gmail, or the nice tidy thing on my one box, but not both). Since gmail offers it anywhere, I prefer to do it this way. Also, despite the mutt way being pretty nice and unixy (letting me script it easily into my window manager and so on), gmail just has an excellent interface with the folding, images, and so on. I hate to not use the classic mail setup everywhere, but it's just not as tidy anymore :/ What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise. -AT I also have gmail filter my emails, set some labels and archive them and it works perfectly. offlineimap maps the labels to directories, so there's no local filtering to do and everything's in sync. I don't really understand what's the problem you describe. Here's my .offlineimaprc: http://pastie.org/474464 Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
On Mon, 11 May 2009 13:13, Andrei Thorp wrote: sup and offlineimap seem promising. I'll want to look into them more in the future. For the sake of discussion, what is it that you folks prefer about your offline setups vs gmail-in-browser? Cheers, -AT I love mutt and had Gmail's web interface discard my emails accidentally when I was composing them. I also like being able to access my email even when I'm offline. It's mostly habit, though. I prefer avoiding the mouse and using the keyboard (I know about gmail's keyboard shortcuts), so mutt makes sense in my case. Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4 pgpAHrHgPOn0C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
For the sake of argument, isn't there an offline mode for gmail, as well as vimperator for even more keyboard binding goodness? -AT On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ricardo Martins rica...@scarybox.net wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2009 13:13, Andrei Thorp wrote: sup and offlineimap seem promising. I'll want to look into them more in the future. For the sake of discussion, what is it that you folks prefer about your offline setups vs gmail-in-browser? Cheers, -AT I love mutt and had Gmail's web interface discard my emails accidentally when I was composing them. I also like being able to access my email even when I'm offline. It's mostly habit, though. I prefer avoiding the mouse and using the keyboard (I know about gmail's keyboard shortcuts), so mutt makes sense in my case. Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4
Re: [aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
Heh, I knew you would say that. I can't get used to vimperator (tried it several times) and I like mutt's interface better than gmail's (for instance, mutt's threads view is way clearer, imo). I also found that I could read all new emails much faster in mutt than in gmail -- I just TAB my way around in each label/directory instead of clicking and scrolling. My muscle/finger memory makes me more efficient at using mutt than the web interface, that's all. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 20:40, Andrei Thorp gar...@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of argument, isn't there an offline mode for gmail, as well as vimperator for even more keyboard binding goodness? -AT On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ricardo Martins rica...@scarybox.net wrote: On Mon, 11 May 2009 13:13, Andrei Thorp wrote: sup and offlineimap seem promising. I'll want to look into them more in the future. For the sake of discussion, what is it that you folks prefer about your offline setups vs gmail-in-browser? Cheers, -AT I love mutt and had Gmail's web interface discard my emails accidentally when I was composing them. I also like being able to access my email even when I'm offline. It's mostly habit, though. I prefer avoiding the mouse and using the keyboard (I know about gmail's keyboard shortcuts), so mutt makes sense in my case. Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4 Regards, -- Ricardo Martins * scarybox.net * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4
