What's the state of the art for mail?

What's the state of the art for mail?

[kj]

After all these years good ol' RMAIL's limitations are *finally*
getting to me.  I've stuck with it mostly out of inertia, and
because it works well with Emacs.

My main concerns are to be able to use Emacs (or a faithful Emacs-like
interface) to read my mail on Linux, to have no problems with MIME
attachments, and no BABYL!  (Availability of a Debian package is
always a plus.)

Thanks for your suggestions!

kj

PS: I'm a bit leery about MH, mostly because a friend of mine who
has used exmh for almost 10 years tells me that its MIME handling
is a little bit long in the tooth.  In particular, she noted that
one needs to jump through hoops to make the quoting of messages
that have MIME attachments work right.
-- 
NOTE: In my address everything before the period is backwards.

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Mike Irwin]

kj <socyl@987jk.com> writes:

> After all these years good ol' RMAIL's limitations are *finally*
> getting to me.  I've stuck with it mostly out of inertia, and
> because it works well with Emacs.
>
> My main concerns are to be able to use Emacs (or a faithful Emacs-like
> interface) to read my mail on Linux, to have no problems with MIME
> attachments, and no BABYL!  (Availability of a Debian package is
> always a plus.)

There's nothing better than Gnus.
-- 
mdi

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Tassilo Horn]

Hi,

I use Gnus [1] for news and mail and think it's nearly perfect. Beside
it you could look at Wanderlust [2] and VM [3] which should do a good
job, too.

Regards,
        Tassilo

[1] http://www.gnus.org and http://my.gnus.org
[2] http://www.gohome.org/wl/
[3] http://www.wonderworks.com/vm
-- 
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.
It just happens to be selective about who it makes friends with.

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Bill Wohler]

kj <socyl@987jk.com> writes:

> My main concerns are to be able to use Emacs (or a faithful Emacs-like
> interface) to read my mail on Linux, to have no problems with MIME
> attachments, and no BABYL!  (Availability of a Debian package is
> always a plus.)

Try MH-E (http://mh-e.sourceforge.net/). And yes, "apt-get install
mh-e" works ;-).

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[kj]

>From what I've seen so far, it is (gnearly) gnunanimous.  Here we
go Gnus.  Thank you all!

kj

-- 
NOTE: In my address everything before the period is backwards.

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Joe Fineman]

Mike Irwin <mdi@pobox.com> writes:

> There's nothing better than Gnus.

Switching from nn to Gnus improved my quality of life greatly.
However, I consider it a serious defect that it does not allow one to
examine mail (at least the sender & subject) before downloading it.
-- 
---  Joe Fineman    jcf@TheWorld.com

||:  Deficient contact with reality is called mania.  Excessive  :||
||:  contact with reality is called depression.                  :||

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Xavier Maillard]

On  9 jun 2004, kj wrote:

> After all these years good ol' RMAIL's limitations are
> *finally* getting to me. I've stuck with it mostly out of
> inertia, and because it works well with Emacs.
> 
> My main concerns are to be able to use Emacs (or a faithful
> Emacs-like interface) to read my mail on Linux, to have no
> problems with MIME attachments, and no BABYL! (Availability of
> a Debian package is always a plus.)
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions!
> 
> kj
> 
> PS: I'm a bit leery about MH, mostly because a friend of mine
> who has used exmh for almost 10 years tells me that its MIME
> handling is a little bit long in the tooth. In particular, she
> noted that one needs to jump through hoops to make the quoting
> of messages that have MIME attachments work right.

Gnus is the way to go even if there are plenty of other MUAs.
-- 
 In Gruuik we trust

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Tim X]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Fineman <jcf@TheWorld.com> writes:

 Joe> Mike Irwin <mdi@pobox.com> writes:
 >> There's nothing better than Gnus.

 Joe> Switching from nn to Gnus improved my quality of life greatly.
 Joe> However, I consider it a serious defect that it does not allow
 Joe> one to examine mail (at least the sender & subject) before
 Joe> downloading it.  -- --- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com

 Joe> ||: Deficient contact with reality is called mania.  Excessive
 Joe> :|| ||: contact with reality is called depression.  :||

I really like VM for e-mail.

Tim

-- 
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you 
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Marcus Frings]

* Xavier Maillard <zedek@gnu-rox.org> wrote:

> Gnus is the way to go even if there are plenty of other MUAs.

But we shouldn't keep secret that Gnus may be very slow under some
circumstances.

Regards,
Marcus
-- 
"Paranoia - das heißt doch nur, die Wirklichkeit
realistischer zu sehen als andere."

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[Bill Wohler]

kj <socyl@987jk.com> writes:

> From what I've seen so far, it is (gnearly) gnunanimous.  Here we
> go Gnus.  Thank you all!

p.s. I actually use gnus for voluminous mailing lists. I use MH-E for
everything else. I also set mail-user-agent and
message-mail-user-agent to mh-e-user-agent so that I can use MH-E to
compose drafts in gnus.

I'll wager that if you try the indexed text searches in MH-E, you'll
be sold.

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[martin]

"JF" == Joe Fineman <jcf@TheWorld.com> writes:
 JF> Date: 09 Jun 2004 18:37:58 -0400
 JF> 
 JF> Mike Irwin <mdi@pobox.com> writes:
 JF> 
 >> There's nothing better than Gnus.
 JF> 
 JF> Switching from nn to Gnus improved my quality of life greatly.
 JF> However, I consider it a serious defect that it does not allow one to
 JF> examine mail (at least the sender & subject) before downloading it.

hi,

there is imap support by the nnimap backend.

martin

 JF> -- 
 JF> ---  Joe Fineman    jcf@TheWorld.com
 JF> 
 JF> ||:  Deficient contact with reality is called mania.  Excessive  :||
 JF> ||:  contact with reality is called depression.                  :||
 JF> 
-- 
martin dot fischer at boschrexroth dot de

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[gebser]

At 16:28 (UTC+0200) on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 martin@rochooni.net said:

= ....
=  JF> 
=  JF> Switching from nn to Gnus improved my quality of life greatly.
=  JF> However, I consider it a serious defect that it does not allow one to
=  JF> examine mail (at least the sender & subject) before downloading it.
= 
= hi,
= 
= there is imap support by the nnimap backend.

And nnimap is used by gnus?


= 
= ...

Re: What's the state of the art for mail?

[martin]

"g" == gebser  <gebser@speakeasy.net> writes:
 g> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:08:28 -0400
 g> Cc: GNU Emacs List <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
 g> 
 g> At 16:28 (UTC+0200) on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 martin@rochooni.net said:
 g> 
 g> = ....
 g> =  JF> 
 g> =  JF> Switching from nn to Gnus improved my quality of life greatly.
 g> =  JF> However, I consider it a serious defect that it does not allow one to
 g> =  JF> examine mail (at least the sender & subject) before downloading it.
 g> = 
 g> = hi,
 g> = 
 g> = there is imap support by the nnimap backend.
 g> 
 g> And nnimap is used by gnus?

yes, you may browse the gnus info pages (type "C-h i m gnus") and the
news group gnu.emacs.gnus for details.

imap is the mail protocol, which allows by default just what you want,
i.e. viewing sender & subject in your mail folders on the mail server
without donloading the mail body.

martin

 g> 
 g> 
 g> = 
 g> = ...
 g> 
 g> 
-- 
martin dot fischer at boschrexroth dot de