Re: why isn't mutt threaded (logically)
Craig Millar <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/04/05 09:42 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
>
> > Well, applications aren't supposed to "multitask"
>
> but then what is the point of programming languages being able to thread
> processes?
Alan Cox once famously said that computers are state machines, and threads are
for people who can't program state machines :).
> > So what you do is run mutt, and have getmail retrieving your
> > mail in the background as a separate application
>
> thanks to you and the other posters who suggested this and fetchmail.
> however, as Mads pointed out, imap is my protocol of choice. Downloading mail
> to the box i am on is an
> imperfect solution for a number of reasons. Primary of these is that i like
> to access my mail from both home and work, so I prefer to have my mail
> exactly as i left it when i migrate from one to the other.
There's an rsync-like two-way synchronization system for mail that sounds like
it would be perfect for your needs; I don't remember what it's called
("mailsync", maybe?) but I'm sure you can find it at freshmeat.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------