51–60 of 88 posts
I hope it stands out it's promisses. My Gmail account is not usable on any gnu/linux IMAP client.
OK, so I assume by that you also mean GPL software, because mozilla thunderbird is pretty damn good. I use it to manage 4 gmail accounts.
I don't see GPG/PGP integration. I have been looking for a lightweight, multi-platform offline capable IMAP client with good GPG/PGP encryption for awhile now, and nothing seems to quite fit the bill.
Not a single word about Windows support on the website. Since its only requirement is Qt > 4.8 it shouldn't be a problem though.
I don't see GPG/PGP integration. I have been looking for a lightweight, multi-platform offline capable IMAP client with good GPG/PGP encryption for awhile now, and nothing seems to quite fit the bill.
I'm also looking for something similar for OSX/Linux. I'd love to move my "life" away from services like gmail (not that I have anything against it, just don't like having all my data that far away from me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always go back to mutt. It does one thing, read email, and it does it well. The key is to set it up appropriately. Don't use mutt for downloading your email, especially if you wanna deal with IMAP. Use isync (mbsync) for that purpose (I used to use offlineimap, but it's buggy and not very fast). There's also notmuch, which I use for indexing my email. It also contains a pretty good email reader.
Mutt's IMAP support is working fine for me. And enabling the header cache makes opening mailboxes fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly a part of the GNU (or Linux) project, but Sylpheed works with Gmail over IMAP.
What is the difference between Sylpheed and Claws? Claws seems to be a fork from the Sylpheed project.
Formerly known as Sylpheed-Claws, it [Claws] started in April 2001 as the development version of Sylpheed, where new features could be tested and debugged, but evolved enough to now be a completely separate program. It forked completely from Sylpheed in August 2005.
Off topic: Can anyone recommend a good command-line mail client. I'm used mutt quite a bit. Wondering if there are any more out there that are at least as good as mutt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea isn't that people can't name things as they like. It's that they should consider the name if they want wide adoption (See RMS and $POSIXLY_CORRECT-vs-$POSIX_ME_HARDER).
Perhaps you might clarify your reference. Based on my understanding, RMS is describing the difficulty addressing machine-compatibility between different implementations of a supposedly-similar interface/protocol/specification. The name of a wholly new application doesn't have similar obligations. A person might think about the implications of the name socially, but is still ultimately free to ignore them. Even RMS no…
| It's open source, so someone could fork it
| with a new identity.