Re: isync vs mailsync
Brian May wrote:
> In my search for a "perfect" offline IMAP client(TM) I have looked at
> isync vs mailsync.
Me too, I have settled on isync for now although it's less than perfect.
> - supports reliably synchronisation of message flags, such as read,
> and previously read, important.
This is the killer feature for me. I don't really see how a mail sync
program can be useful without it.
> - supports only maildirs. IMHO, the use of maildirs in this
> application isn't really needed, and results in less efficient use of
> diskspace.
Agreed. It was a pita to have to switch to maildirs to use this program.
> - encodes message UID into the message filename, apparently this is
> against maildir specifications.
Doesn't seem to break anything though.
> - delete message on client => gets transfered again on next download.
Not if you can set up your mail client properly. If using mutt, set
maildir_trash.
> - create message on client => gets ignored by isync.
It's supposed to have support for uploading local messages now, but I
have never seen it work yet.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: