[aur-general] Mutt vs Gmail (Was: An idea for vim scripts/plugins)
garoth at gmail.com
Mon May 11 13:13:02 EDT 2009
sup and offlineimap seem promising. I'll want to look into them more
in the future.
For the sake of discussion, what is it that you folks prefer about
your offline setups vs gmail-in-browser?
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Ricardo Martins <ricardo at scarybox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:30, Andrei Thorp wrote:
>> Well, I have all my mailing lists neatly arraged here and so on. They
>> get filed to labels and archived automatically so that I can read them
>> in a unified place. I'd have to change this up so that they go to the
>> inbox, and that screws up my mail filtering in gmail then (afaik). It
>> kind of forces me to compromise one way or another (either have the
>> nice tidy thing in gmail, or the nice tidy thing on my one box, but
>> not both). Since gmail offers it anywhere, I prefer to do it this way.
>> Also, despite the mutt way being pretty nice and unixy (letting me
>> script it easily into my window manager and so on), gmail just has an
>> excellent interface with the folding, images, and so on. I hate to not
>> use the classic mail setup everywhere, but it's just not as tidy
>> anymore :/
>> What do people think on this topic? I personally find gmail to be
>> extremely convenient, but I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise.
> I also have gmail filter my emails, set some labels and archive them and it
> works perfectly. offlineimap maps the labels to directories, so there's no local
> filtering to do and everything's in sync.
> I don't really understand what's the problem you describe.
> Here's my .offlineimaprc: http://pastie.org/474464
> Ricardo Martins * ricardomartins.cc * GPG key: 0x1308F1B4
More information about the aur-general