Re: choices: how to start using IMAP

[Mark Bainter]

David Thorburn-Gundlach [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
 Hi, folks --
 
 I'm now starting to look at mutt for my office, where I can get into
 the evil Exchange server via IMAP.  Having not played much with IMAP

You have my sympathy.

 (and, in fact, obviously not understanding too much about it), I'm not
 too sure to what release to go.  I use a moderately patched 0.95.4i out
 at my real server, but don't think that it has enough IMAP capability.
 Is there a stable IMAP-aware mutt, or do I have to go into the dreaded
 development branch? (OK, that last bit was an exaggeration :-)

I'm currently using IMAP with mutt .95i and exchange server 5.5 at work.  The
only time I've had a problem was when I was reading my mail from two
simultaneous instances of mutt accessing the exchange server and some other
weird stuff.  In that case my only problem was not being able to exit mutt
except with a ^c-y.  Just enable imap when you compile it and you are ready to
go.  (assuming you have it enabled for yourself on the ES of course).  If you
need help accessing your folders/etc let me know.  
 
 Is there an IMAP-Notes file a la PGP-Notes, or perhaps some other
 tutorial/primer pointer, for the truly clueless among us, such as I?
 
Heh, no there isn't one.  I'd offer to write one, but as people who know me
would willingly attest, I suck at writing documentation/teaching. ;-)  

Despite what I said above, I do plan on upgrading mutt in the near future.
Actually, I've been meaning to for some time but never have.  We have a new
machine to migrate to and I'm hoping mutt 1.0 will be out when I move over and
I'll install that.  I've watched the IMAP dev fairly closely and there are
some very good reasons for going to a more recent version of mutt.  So if you
are going to have to recompile anyway, might as well go full-bore. ;-)




-- 
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samual Adams

 PGP signature

Re: Email client poll

[Mark Bainter]

Tom Hall [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:46:09AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This, to me, is the main reason we need to keep a good base of users. 
 I also think we could expand this base a lot if pre-compiled DOS and/or
 W32 binaries were easily available.

I kind of ignored this the first time around, but this time I have to comment.
Why in the world would it be beneficial to have pre-compiled DOS and/or W32
binaries available?   This smells more like digging for trouble to me.  We
already have the same questions asked and answered on a daily basis on here.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone ask how you set a different
from address depending on the mailbox or who sent it to you.  If keeping a
good base of users so development continues is our goal, then Win users are
not the ones we want.  If mutt was developed commercially that would be a case
you could make, because they might drop the product simply based on the number
of people using it.  But in an open project like mutt the way it keeps going
is people contributing to it.  Not whining about it because it doesn't have a
pretty window with a progress bar everytime you do anything with it.  Or
because they have to work with a config file instead of clicking an options
button.  

Having a port to those platforms isn't a problem, because they still have to
compile the thing to make it work, which requires at least a measure of
brainwave activity.  Make it available precompiled, esp in a self-installing
package, and this list will go down the tubes.  

No thank you.  Let the windows l^Husers keep using their Outlook Express or
Eudora garbage, or else switch to linux.  

Just my $.02


 PGP signature

Re: PGP signed mails to the list

[Mark Bainter]

Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type: 
multipart/signed; boundary=v9Ux+11Zm5mwPlX6; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"