On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 12:10:18AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > 1) That philosophy is a good one, but implimenting POP3 and IMAP flies in
> > the face of it, making Mutt a minimalist MDA, in addition to an MUA.
> > Not a complaint, but an observation. Technically, either both should
> > be supported minimally, or neither, IMHO.
>
> POP3: Yes, and this is why removing it from Mutt is a perennial(sp) debate.
>
> IMAP: Not quite the same, since even though IMAP is often remote, at the
> core it's just another popular mailbox/folder format such as mbox, Maildir,
> etc. It's proper for Mutt as a mail reader to support it. The primary
> purpose/action is not transferring the mail (indeed, you usually don't
> really "download" it), it's reading/browsing/composing it.
>
Well I would view POP3 as a [very] cut down IMAP. *Sensible* MUAs
implement POP3 as a mailbox which is left on the server, i.e. they
just show the E-Mails in the MUA without deleting them from the server.
They only delete the mail from the POP3 mailbox if the user explictly
deletes a message. So from the user's point of view it looks just like
an ordinary mail folder.
Most Unix MUAs that implement POP3 do it this way (tkrat, Mahogany,
xcmail, xfmail) but for some reason I have yet to find a Windows one
that does (except the Mahogany port of course).
If mutt was rather cleverer on this front then I wouldn't be looking
for other MUAs at the moment. I'll expand on this in another message!
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
