On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:57:33AM +0000, John Long wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:33:05AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > > On 08Dec2014 22:04, Chris Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times
> > > >over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and
> > > >transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool.
> > >
> > > I would advocate trying offlineimap. I am a huge fan of having one's
> > > mail local to the machine for all the reasons you have outlined.
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well, looking at offlineimap has lead me to notmuch as well which has
> > got me thinking down those lines too! :-)
> >
> > However, for me, moving to offlineimap involves quite a bit of
> > reconfiguration work as I currently use mbox and I don't have an IMAP
> > server running on the machine where the E-Mails initially get
> > delivered.
> >
> > So I just need to decide which of many possible routes will serve me
> > best.
>
> If we all misunderstood and you have multiple instances of mutt running and
> want to be able to access your mail from any of them then use POP and leave
> the email on the server. Are you forced to use IMAP?
>
I currently read my E-Mails (at different times, not simultaneously)
using mutt on:-
The desktop Linux system which is also where Postfix runs to
receive my E-Mail.
My laptop running Linux, sometimes on the LAN with the above
desktop, sometimes out and about connected by someone's home WiFi
or a 3G connection.
Rarely, but occasionally, on someone else's system.
The reason I'd use IMAP rather than POP3 is that I have mail filtering
running on the desktop server. There's a custom script that delivers
mailing list E-Mails (in particular) to separate mailboxes. I want to
be able to see these when I read my E-Mail remotely. Thus I'd simply
do everything remotely using IMAP, not store anything on the laptop.
--
Chris Green
