Re: mutt + dovecot/squirrelmail + mbox ?
On 2005-06-06, Rogério Brito penned:
> On Jun 05 2005, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> For the last few years, I've been running mutt directly on my mail
>> server to access mbox-formatted mail.
>
> I have switched to mutt (from pine) since the pre-1.x days (it's ben
> more than 7 years, as far as I can remember) just for reading my
> mail in Maildir format and I haven't had any problems with that
> (well, besides when Debian's mutt got some header cache problems,
> but that was a problem with mutt and not with Maildir exactly).
Yup; I'm not worried about mutt's ability to handle Maildir. I think
I've been using mbox because I'm familiar with it and because I know
that, push come to shove, more tools support mbox than support
Maildir. I also have some logrotate stuff going on (I have procmail
save messages to a "backup" mailbox before it applies any rules, then
use logrotate to eventually phase out the really old stuff. It saves
me from any malformed rules, and it also helps when I realize I've
just accidentally deleted a useful email).
[snip]
>> Sometimes I get an email with a lot of links, and I'd like to just
>> middle-click and open them in new tabs.
>
> This problem you can solve easily with urlview.
No, not really. Well, sort of. On machines where I have an xserver
installed, I can use that approach, but it's noticably laggier
(UI-wise) than running the browser locally. And on machines where I
can't run an xserver, it's obviously not an option. And I didn't know
that urlview could open things in new tabs of an existing session, but
I guess there's no reason it couldn't.
(It's just occured to me I could probably cobble together some Java
using RMI to address the issue of calling a browser on a different
machine ... sounds like a project! I hope no one's done it already.)
[snip]
>> Yeah, that's just not going to work for me. IMAP is really just a
>> means to the end of webmail for me, but webmail is only a secondary
>> concern; I need to be able to run mutt, and being able to use
>> grepmail and similar utilities is also pretty important.
>
> What's the problem with having mutt access your mail via IMAP on
> your local machine? I've been doing this for quite some time and it
> works quite well. And it also opens the possibility of you using,
> say, horde as a webmail server which can contact courier-imap to do
> its job.
It's been a while since I've used IMAP with a regular client, but IIRC
it's slower and more cumbersome than direct access. Specifically, it
takes a while to load mailboxes, and I have some very large mailboxes.
There's also the issue of having to deal with passwords or some sort
of authentication method.
> It may be that courier and horde aren't the best solutions to the
> problem, but the infra-structure that you'll use will mostly be like
> that, in terms of the problem you're trying to solve.
I've had some trouble installing horde, actually, and I just kind of
got annoyed and gave up. Horde provides way, way more than I actually
need or want.
Dovecot and squirrelmail seem to be okay so far ...
--
monique
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Reply to: