Re: pronto users ???
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>
> -- Vineet Kumar <debian-user@virtual.doorstop.net> wrote
> (on Thursday, 13 February 2003, 05:29 PM -0800):
> > * Michael D. Schleif (mds@helices.org) [030213 14:16]:
<snip />
> > > <snip>... I am working on moving a 2GB, ~1000000
> > > message, ~500 folder, ~400 messages per day mail archive to debian
> > > woody. Currently, this is used by netscrape mail in an convenient and
> > > elaborate hierarchy of folders sometimes (10) or more levels deep.
> > >
> > > I'm testing mutt; but, I have not found as convenient a solution to the
> > > many nested subfolder syndrome, especially regarding the navigation of
> > > folders from within mutt.
>
> What don't you like about the navigation? What kind of mail format are
> you using (Maildir, mbox, MH...)? I use IMAP (more on that below), and I
> like the ability to define mailboxes I use regularly for 'one stop
> shopping', as well as being able to navigate my "tree" when I want to.
> Best yet, I can do it all from my keyboard....
Perhaps, that is what I am missing -- IMAP! In my posts here and on
mutt-users, I am trying to describe my situation objectively and to
avoid prejudice for options I am investigating. I have tossed out IMAP?
as a possible solution; but, you are the only one to bite.
I have used remote IMAP servers; but, not built one -- so, I do not know
how nor if I can use to build a tree of 500-1000 subfolders/branches,
10-20 levels deep?
Please, show me the way ?!?!
> Is that the part you don't like -- that it's console-based? If so, mutt
> definitely *isn't* for you. However, give it a try -- I was a die-hard
> GUI mail-reader fanatic, but was constantly getting frustrated with the
> memory and CPU overhead of GUI apps (I'm on a 366Mhz machine that, until
> recently, had minimal memory). I forced myself to try mutt for a couple
> weeks, and I've never gone back.
No, I am a diehard cli hacker; so, mutt is quite attractive to me. In
fact, I understand that I can invoke mutt from the cli with appropriate
arguments and I can view results of my ad hoc queries! -- not there,
yet, but I'm going to like that . . .
> > > Further investigation shows that pronto supports nested subfolders; but,
> > > <http://www.muhri.net/pronto/> has not revealed much detail.
>
> I used Pronto! for a few months a couple years ago, and recall liking
> it. What I *didn't* like is that I recall it storing messages in a MySQL
> database -- however, I see it now has support for mbox and Maildir, so
> that's a moot issue. However, because it *did* use a database, the
> programmer had done a nice job with nested folders (I think every
> programmer at some point tries their hand at trees and folders).
What do you *not* like about storing mail archives in a database? I've
been thinking for sometime that that is where I'd like to end up -- what
is the downside ???
> > As a side note, I can recommend that the most convenient way I've found
> > to transport mail from proprietary stores (outlook, etc.) to righteous
> > ones is via an IMAP server. Should you decide to just move everything
> > to the IMAP store and keep it there, this gives you the advantage of
> > being able to access the same data and folder hierarchy from whatever
> > MUA you feel like at any time (and from whatever site, no less).
>
> I *heartily* second this! For several years, I kept trying just about
> every new mailer I came across because the one I was using didn't have X
> feature, or because the new mailer had this new cool Y feature... I
> can't tell you how many times I had to move mail stores from one app to
> another or one format to another.... Ugghh! Finally I got the idea to
> throw up an IMAP server, and it made these "conversions" so much easier,
> as I never had to worry about the backend -- just the frontend.
Please, give me some pointers regarding IMAP. Do you believe that I can
rigorously manage my growing mail system? Which IMAP?
What do you think?
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
888.250.3987
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we
think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
Reply to: