Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-25 Thread Lukasz Stelmach

  Bya godzina 12:44:04 w sobota 23 wrzesie, gdy do autobusu wsiad kanar
  i wrzasn:"David Champion!!!  Bilecik do kontroli!!!" A on(a) na to:

 A few years ago, I was tired of my frustrations with MH, elm, and
 Columbia mm, and I hated Pine.  
[...] 
 I was in the planning stages, and had written a tiny amount of core
 code, when I found mutt. Mutt is an excellent mailer, good enough to
 resolve almost all my issues with the mailers I've used over the
 years. 

But there is one major problem that none of well known text-based (of
coures that is not the matter of UI) mailreaders does not solve.
Spooling. When i use either mutt, pine or simple mail first i have to
set up sendmail/postfix/qmail which does spooling job. When nobody else
use this computer it is a bit pointless to set up mailserver. IMHO
spooling should be done before anything else will be thought about
(what a grammar construction ;). Walking further, the pop3 support
should give ability to plug in procmail somewhere to sort messages.

That would be The-Mutt-of-My-Dreams ;)

BTW. Anyone knows any other than 'serialmail' way to use qmail over
dialup (dynamic IP)

Best wishes... 
-- 
|/   |_,  _   .-  --,2:480/135@fido[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ |_|. | \ |_|. ._' /_. 101:1000/135@unholy

... nothing is impossible in my powerful mind.



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-25 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

Lukasz Stelmach proclaimed on mutt-users that: 

 But there is one major problem that none of well known text-based (of
 coures that is not the matter of UI) mailreaders does not solve.
 Spooling. When i use either mutt, pine or simple mail first i have to

Masqmail / Nullmailer are your friends.

 (what a grammar construction ;). Walking further, the pop3 support
 should give ability to plug in procmail somewhere to sort messages.
 
You mean a built in filtering interface?  Instead, bundling a sample procmailrc
template (and linking to Era Eriksson's Procmail mini ^H^H^H^H bronto FAQ at
http://www.iki.fi/~era/procmail ..) should do the trick.

Also http://www.spambouncer.org or http://www.waltdnes.org if you want to do
something more fancy, like say spam filtering, with procmail.

 That would be The-Mutt-of-My-Dreams ;)
 
I'm already fantastising about mutt, you know ;)

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis
mallet @ cluestick.org + Lumber Cartel of India, tinlcI
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty.
-- Plato



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-25 Thread Chris Green

On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 05:39:59PM +0300, Mikko H?nninen wrote:
 Jens Askengren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
   Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
   (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
   any decade now...)
  
  There are a lot of GUI clients out there for X11. But unfortunately, most
  of them seem to implement ease of use at the cost of limited functionality.
 
 Well, I was led to understand that Balsa is, or at least started out as,
 "Mutt with a GUI".  I remember seeing a reference to "libmutt"
 somewhere.
 
There's a lot of the latest mutt which isn't in Balsa.  I've been
looking for an X MUA for a long time but I always end up returning to
mutt for various reasons.  The main reason I've been looking for a
GUI client is to ease handling of folder hierarchies.  However none
of the X MUAs is as complete as mutt and certainly none is as stable
as mutt.

-- 
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-25 Thread Chris Green

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 06:06:05PM +0200, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
 
 BTW. Anyone knows any other than 'serialmail' way to use qmail over
 dialup (dynamic IP)
 
Yes, there's a patch written by a qmail user that I used to use which
makes qmail via a dial-up connection *much* easier.  It's called the
'holdremote' patch, go take a look at:-
http://www.mimir.com/~leveret/qmail.html

-- 
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-25 Thread Lukasz Stelmach

  Bya godzina 12:46:39 w poniedziaek 25 wrzesie, gdy do autobusu wsiad kanar
  i wrzasn:"Suresh Ramasubramanian!!!  Bilecik do kontroli!!!" A on(a) na to:

 (what a grammar construction ;). Walking further, the pop3 support
 should give ability to plug in procmail somewhere to sort messages.
 You mean a built in filtering interface?

No. Not a built in, just a "hole" to plug procmail in. Instead of
writing downloaded mail to a mailbox, pass it to an external command.
That is all i need.

HANDON
-- 
|/   |_,  _   .-  --,2:480/135@fido[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ |_|. | \ |_|. ._' /_. 101:1000/135@unholy

... nothing is impossible in my powerful mind.



Re: catchup command?

2000-09-23 Thread Byrial Jensen

On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:33:36 -0700, Peter Jaques wrote:
 i'm looking for some command that will mark all messages in a current
 mailbox as being read, without having to actually read them. sort of like
 ^R but for an entire mailbox ( not dependent on threading). is there a
 such?

Tag all messages, mark the tagged messages read, and finally untag
them. Can be bound to macro if you like, for example:

macro index R "T~Aenter;WN;t" "Mark all messages read"

-- 
Byrial
http://home.worldonline.dk/~byrial/



Re: catchup command?

2000-09-23 Thread David Champion

On 2000.09.23, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Byrial Jensen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Tag all messages, mark the tagged messages read, and finally untag
 them. Can be bound to macro if you like, for example:
 
 macro index R "T~Aenter;WN;t" "Mark all messages read"

This is correct, of course, and what I gave is not.  I should learn not
to reply with unproven answers at 4:00 in the morning. :)

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread Mikko Hänninen

Jens Askengren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
 Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.

Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
(Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
any decade now...)


Regards,
Mikko
-- 
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu  //  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  //  http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer  //   net.freak  //   DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy  scifi, the Corrs /
Money isn't everything.  There's also world domination.



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread Jens Askengren

On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 04:02:44PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
 Jens Askengren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
  Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.
 
 Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
 (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
 any decade now...)

There are a lot of GUI clients out there for X11. But unfortunately, most
of them seem to implement ease of use at the cost of limited functionality.

-Jens

 PGP signature


Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread David T-G

Jens --

...and then Jens Askengren said...
% 
% Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI. I know that some of you might

Gaack!  *sputter*  *wheeze*  cough cough

'scuse me


% want to edit your .procmailrc after reading this post. Please do so, but
% read this first =)

Hey, if this is any indication, I can't wait to see what you come up with
next! ;-)


Seriously, while a GUI-enabled mutt does sound interesting, it also
sounds like a radical change in the development track... and my fear is
that, once such a change were made, the text-only mutt would suffer if
not go away entirely.  That would really suck for me, for instance, since
I do my mail over an ssh vt100 connection (and pround of it! :-)

Could what you suggest be accomplished or approximated through a few
macros here and there combined with multiple term windows running mutt
under a windowing system?  Think about it...  You could have each of
these windows open with your desired functions, and your 'm'ail and
'r'eply kes could be bound to macros which kick off a new window and a
new mutt doing the reply, leaving the existing "parent" mutt window there
to watch the mailbox while you compose.

Just a thought...  Probably easier and faster to design up than (though,
certainly, not as simple or polished as) an integrated GUI-based mutt and,
hey, you could get to say it's all yours! :-)


HTH  HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G   * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED]  * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001.  There was no year 0.
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*


 PGP signature


Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread Mikko Hänninen

Jens Askengren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
  Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
  (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
  any decade now...)
 
 There are a lot of GUI clients out there for X11. But unfortunately, most
 of them seem to implement ease of use at the cost of limited functionality.

Well, I was led to understand that Balsa is, or at least started out as,
"Mutt with a GUI".  I remember seeing a reference to "libmutt"
somewhere.

So it was not just "another X GUI MUA" suggested to me.


But, not having really looked at the program myself, I can't really
say if this is true or not.  I'm just re-typing what I remember hearing
before. :-)


Mikko
-- 
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu  //  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  //  http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer  //   net.freak  //   DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy  scifi, the Corrs /
  unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep



Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread David Champion

On 2000.09.23, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Jens Askengren" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 A GUI-mutt could be implemented by separating mutt into a backend and
 several frontends (curses, X11, etc). The frontend could be selected at
 compiletime, or loaded as a plugin/dll/.so-lib at runtime. Given the same
 .muttrc, the different frontends should feel and act the same.

A few years ago, I was tired of my frustrations with MH, elm, and
Columbia mm, and I hated Pine.  Although I didn't really want to use a
GUI, I had occasional uses for one, and knew others like having them,
too.

I had an idea then of producing a mailer founded on a small core, with
modules to provide the front-ends, the mailbox interfaces, and
script-language bindings.  One DSO for an X frontend, one DSO for a
curses frontend, one for an MH-like stateless system.  One for CGI or
mod_perl, maybe.  A DSO for IMAP, one for MH, one for mbox, one for
NNTP.  A DSO for perl, a DSO for python.  I wanted to provide
interfaces suitable to implement all these, in such a ways that they
could be used concurrently (although some UI combinations would be hard
to make sense of).

I was in the planning stages, and had written a tiny amount of core
code, when I found mutt.  I've been happily procrastinating ever
since.  (I don't really have that kind of time, anyway.)  Mutt is an
excellent mailer, good enough to resolve almost all my issues with the
mailers I've used over the years.  But I still like my original plan,
and I still want to see it done, just because I feel that it's the
right approach to a mailer's design.  In some ways, it's easiest now if
it's done on Mutt, but that's a LOT of code-mashing and munging.  I
don't know whether it's worth it anymore.  But I think that kind of
design is a REALLY good idea.  And, in that light, there's absolutely
no reason to bar a GUI front-end, even though I personally don't have
much use for one.

 Additionally, a GUI-mutt could have a frame based addressbook, a
 .muttrc-wizzard, etc.

Yes, but another interface could too.  That ought not to be dependent
on a GUI, although it might be most comfortable in a GUI.  That ought
to be an available interface to any willing UI.

 What do you think? If such an idea has a chance to go into the mutt-sources,
 I would like to contribute to a GTK-frontend.

I guess you know what I think now. :)  Yes, yes, yes, but I don't
really know whether it's feasible, and I certainly don't know whether
the mutt group is interested in this kind of fundamental change.

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago

 PGP signature


Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread Wouter Verheijen

Well, a GUI does have some advantages:
- One can read HTML-mail... OK, people should not be sending html, but
really a lot of (Microsoft)-users, do. It would be quite nice to view
the layout they intended with fonts inline images.
- The resolution is usally much more, so you can have more text on the
screen.
- You can have multiple windows.

Of course it shouldn't be dumb like ms-programs, but more like gVIM.
Everything works the same, but it has some advantages.

I'm not sure if it is possible to share most of the code between an
console and GTK-version, but it may be considered to try a GTK-version.


 Additionally, a GUI-mutt could have a frame based addressbook, a
 .muttrc-wizzard, etc.
 
 
 What do you think? If such an idea has a chance to go into the mutt-sources,
 I would like to contribute to a GTK-frontend.
 
   -Jens
 
-- 
Wouter Verheijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 PGP signature


Re: A better mutt? (Was Re: catchup command?)

2000-09-23 Thread Myrddin

Jens Askengren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
 Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.


Not to nitpick, but no.  mutt does not need a GUI.  It'd probably be more
accurate to say that you -want- a GUI for mutt.  To this day, mutt is easily
the most powerful, configurable, fast mailer that I've used.

And for me, being a keyboard oriented dude, mutt's interface is perfect as is.
Having extra windows pop up will only slow me down as I switch back and forth
between windows.  When I hit 'r', I want to start typing.. not have to worry
about making sure focus is on the new window -- and when I dismiss the new
window, I don't want to have to make sure focus goes back to my 'index'
window.

I realize not everyone works this way, which is fine. =)  I prefer to have one
window per app, if that.  Currently I have two different mutt sessions (one
personal, one work based that fetchmail feeds), an epic (irc) session, tf
session (mush/mud client), and two shells all in one 'screen' session.  Makes
it easy for me to toggle between them without having to reach away from the
keyboard.  Also allows me to access all this stuff from work/home/friends
house without having to lose state at all.

So, a rather long-winded response, I know... but I just wanted to contend that
mutt does not require a front end.

- Myrddin