Re: Linux Mail Client (was: Re: Web browsers for Linux (was: Re: Netscape Bus Error))
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, David Zoll wrote:
> there is a third choice (and I don't mean something that filters but
> calls it something else), I'd love to hear about it.
Simply stated, one program that has two instances in itself. Like an
editor which can edit two buffers at the same time.
> > Add a new filter to my work account set of filters.
> Only if you want it in a subfolder in your work account mail directory.
> I've seen no option on any client that would avoid this step.
Really? How, then, will it get into the default work directory if I don't
set up a filter? How will it be caught by my current set of filters if it
already isn't there?
> > Add a folder definition into Mutt just to keep it straight.
> What do you mean a "Folder definition"? Provided you use subdirectories
> sanely, you can use one set of folder-hooks for an entire accounts worth
> of subfolders, and only need to add one if you need something special
> for a specific subfolder.
True. This was written before I was made aware of that feature of mutt.
Let's just say I consider one of the many failings of mutt that many of the
"hey, cool!" features are impossible to find by playing with the product which
is the exact opposite of my experience with other similar products.
> > Still send mail out my home SMTP server.
> Which can then route the mail to the appropriate mail server. This is
> how SMTP was designed to work.
Technically, yes. However, if your boss says that work email is not to
touch outside SMTP servers as a matter of policy how far do you think "Well,
the SMTP server will route it correctly anyway, that is what they do" will
fly? There are reasons other than technical to different servers.
> Alternately: "folder-hook <pattern> sendmail <alternate send command>".
> You just put in one of those lines for each separate account.
I fail to see how this would have mutt send mail to my corporate SMTP
server which is over the net. Are you suggesting I now write a small wrapper
to do the dumb forwarding over the network? Not beyond my capabilities by any
means but foolish to require most people to do that for such a simple task.
> > It is a bear to configure every time something changes,
> Not really, most changes should just work; others, change a line or two
> and you're done. The only change that will be a bear is adding,
> removing or moving an entire account. If those change often, work on an
> automation script, shouldn't be hard.
This is unacceptable. Changes in 2-3 different locations and if you want
to do it often, script it on your own. I'm sorry but any heavily used process
should already have an interface to change it easily or have sane defaults.
Neither of which are present here.
> > it doesn't keep it all separate, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. That is unacceptable.
> The mailboxes are separate, the outgoing mail is separate, the headers
> are separate; hell, even the user interface can be separaete if you want
> to be perverse about it. What more do you want to separate?
Only after massive arm-twisting, a mind boggling complex configuration and
it still has problems with separate SMTP servers and other such things.
Meanwhile what I am used to does all of that as the default course. It is
separate. You want to mix it up, forward from one account to the other but
until you do it doesn't mix it up for you because each account is, as it
should be, completely separate.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: