* Matt McLeod <m...@boggle.org> [2007-10-30 05:50]: > People keep telling me mutt is great as an IMAP client but > I remain to be convinced. I do recall it being absolutely > dreadful without the experimental header cache stuff, and > still not being all that good.
Hmm, the way I always heard it, mutt isn’t very good at IMAP. Usually among the terminal clients Pine is said to have the best IMAP code, but I have no idea if any of that is correct since I don’t use IMAP. > I'm not convinced that there's an unhateful MUA, I was asking specifically about the quality of the IMAP implementation, not the MUA in general. I actually don’t hate mutt as far that is concerned. And my recent upgrade to 1.5 fixed a lot of niggles that annoyed me in 1.4 (none of them actively hateful, excepting the absence of header caching for Maildirs – which is what got me to upgrade). Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
