K.S. Bhaskar on 9 Jan 2013 13:54:06 -0800

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] good linux mail clients

Not quite an answer to the question that was asked, but why not run something like Dovecot locally, and have it sync with an upstrem mail server? ÂYou can then access it pretty much any way you want, with thunderbird today, mutt tomorrow, and the (still non-existent) bifurcated kumquat mail server the day after.

-- Bhaskar

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Claude M. Schrader <plug@claudeschrader.com> wrote:
On 16:02 Wed 09 Jan   , Walt Mankowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:37:36PM -0500, Michael Lazin wrote:
> > Does anyone have a recommendation of a better mail client for linux
> > than thunderbird?
> My everyday Linux mail client is mutt.

+1. I've been using mutt for a few years. It obviously takes some getting
used to, but when it comes to dealing with large amounts of mail adeptly,
nothing else is even close.

mutt *can* render html mail, so you can read it without seeing tags and
whatnot, but most formatting other than basic layout, bold, etc is lost.
Still, its good enough for 98% of the mail I get. All the rest generally
have a "view as a web page" link anyway.
Philadelphia Linux Users Group     --    Âhttp://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion Â-- Â http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Windows does to computers what smoking does to humans
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug