On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:37:55PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm considering switching to IMAP. How good is Mutt as an IMAP
client? I'm currently just accessing local mbox files directly,
but I'd like to be able to access my mail from other machines.
Good, provided you use a recent
Le 21/01/02 à 21:37, Samuel Padgett écrivit:
I'm considering switching to IMAP. How good is Mutt as an IMAP
client? I'm currently just accessing local mbox files directly,
but I'd like to be able to access my mail from other machines.
mutt + IMAP works very well for me. It should be
Sam,
I use mutt at work to read mail from an IMAP store.
While I love mutts functionality, I must say that the its speed in
processing IMAP stores strikes me as slow. I think this is because
mutt doesn't seem to have any caching mechanism. As a result, each
tim you open an imap subfolder you
* Dave Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [22/01/02, 08:43:27]:
Good, provided you use a recent (beta) copy (e.g. 1.3.26).
However, I'm having some stability problems (about 1 segfault/day), but
hopefully this will be fixed soon.
Did you report them? I have none. What's your OS/Distribution? Did you
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:30:19PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must say that the its speed in
processing IMAP stores strikes me as slow. I think this is because
mutt doesn't seem to have any caching mechanism. As a result, each
tim you open an imap subfolder you have to wait for it to
David,
I use 1.3.9i and the IMAP functionality, while admittedly beyond
comprehension in better than the 1.2x series, is still very slow.
I'd really like to get more Mutt users here, but the slow spool and
respool of the IMAP folders is a showstopper (versus PINE IMAP or
Netscape Mail).
It's
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:37:55PM -0500, Samuel Padgett wrote:
I'm considering switching to IMAP. How good is Mutt as an IMAP
client? I'm currently just accessing local mbox files directly,
but I'd like to be able to access my mail from other machines.
I use IMAP to access the Exchange
