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

Re: Email programs that work.

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:14:27PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> s. keeling wrote:
> > Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org>:
> >>      It lacks the ability to use the SMTP interface to send mail, being
> >>  restricted to the command line to get the job done.
> > It's an MUA.  Use SMTP.
>     Exactly.  I would love to but it can't.
> >>      It lacks filtering.
> > Like a washing machine sucks as a dishwasher.
>     Yet filtering belongs in the client, especially if that client has
> multiple accounts since one wouldn't want the same filters to apply to all
> accounts.
I would have to respectfully disagree with you here.  If you are using
POP, you might have a case.  However, if you are using IMAP, then the
filtering belongs on the server.  I like knowing that no matter which of
the three different clients I use from the three computers in my house
or any of the computers at work see the same thing.  That is, when I
decide to filter debian list mail to a particular folder, then I should
not need to implement that on two or three MUAs on half a dozen hosts.
I should be able to log into the server, do it once there and have it
take effect everywhere.

The same goes with Spam.  I don't have to train more than one Spam
filter, that being the one on the server.

> >>      It lacks a decent IMAP implementation.  Hint, IMAP is not a glorified
> >>   POP.
> > Don't care.
>     You don't.  I do.  I rather like being able to read mail on my Debian
> laptop, my WinXP Game machine or any machine with a web-capable browser and
> get all of my mail all of the time.
But yet, you want the client to handle all your filtering for you?  That
makes no sense.

> >>      It lacks a decent multi-account implementation.  Having to configure
> >>  every single item by hand without the concept of account inheritance is 
> >>  a nightmare.
> > You have a ridiculously complicated "system" for organizing your mail,
> > and it's mutt's fault for doing what it does well.  No.
>     A rediculously complicated system?  What's so complicated about it.  Let's
> see, I have home mail and I have work mail.  I configure my home account with
> 1 signature, 1 POP/IMAP server, 1 SMTP server.  All the mail remains separate.
>  All my home filters only apply to my home mail.  I need a work account I
> configure 1 signature, 1 POP/IMAP server, 1 SMTP server.  All mail remains
> separate.  All my work filters only apply to my work mail.
>     Mutt, by contrast, requires you to first.... learn how to run an SMTP
> server, shove all your work and home mail through it where you then have to
> write filters which separate it back out.  Nevermind that all filters apply to
> all mail all of the time.  Then, once it is filtered out, you need to go
> through for every freakin' folder and define which address it is supposed to
> come from, which sent-mail folder it is supposed to go to, which signature to
> use.  Add a new folder?  Have to do it all over again.  And heaven help the
> person who wants to send home mail through his home SMTP server and work mail
> through his work SMTP server because of sticky little work policies which
> state that all mail that passes through the work server is subject to being
> read at any time by any upper management or security personell, work servers
> are not to be used for personal mail and any work mail which is going between
> two employees in the company must go through the work SMTP server whenever
> possible to prevent outside companies from being able to record and review
> confidential documents.  So know what that means?  Right, back to the SMTP
> server to mangle outbound mail to go to the right server and pray they don't
> nail you for the Received line.  That alone shows that Mutt is far more
> complex than it needs to be.  Separate how outbound mail gets to its
> destination in modern clients *one freaking configuration option*.  To do it
> in Mutt requires advanced SMTP server techniques!
Have you even bothered to Google search for "mutt multiple accounts"?
It appears that the account-hook configuration setting can be used to
set up a number of different IMAP accounts between which you can switch
quite easily.  No local SMTP server setup required.  Besides, mutt is
only complex because of its extreme flexibility.


Roberto C. Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: