[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Offline mail reader for several lists

I think you need to ask debian-user about the packages named "uqwk" and
"multimail" or something like that.

Having never used either I can't help, but many many years ago I used a QWK
reader to read usenet news.

Anything else that is QWK compatible under development?

I would almost be interested in a GTK based QWK reader...

----- Forwarded by Vince Mulhollon/Norlight on 12/05/2000 10:55 AM -----
                    Nils Rennebarth                                                                                     
                    <nils@ipe.uni-stu        To:     Debian Development list <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>            
                    ttgart.de>               cc:     (bcc: Vince Mulhollon/Norlight)                                    
                                             Fax to:                                                                    
                    12/05/2000 10:31         Subject:     Offline mail reader for several lists                         

I use procmail to sort my incoming mail (a dozen or so mailinglists) to
different folders. To read mail from home, I ssh to the computer at work
read mail with mutt.

But as phone lines ar expensive here, instead of spending an hour of
online mail reading, I would like to connect, download new mails,
disconnect, read and delete most of them, then connect again and write back
eventual changes to the folders.

Is there a piece of software that allows me to do just that? It doesn't
sound like a very exotic problem so someone else might have wanted a
solution. Using imap does not count, it won't work offline,
as it makes a connection to the server for every message to be


*New* *New* *New*    - on shellac records
   Windows HE        - see top 10 reasons to downgrade on
Historical Edition     http://www.microsoft.com/windowshe
(See attached file: att0rnxr.dat)

Attachment: att0rnxr.dat
Description: Binary data

Reply to: