Re: [SM-USERS] Re: Can Squirrel sort messages by thread?

[Bron G. <br...@br...>]

Will Yardley said:
> Tracy McKibben wrote:
>> (I wrote)
>
>> > no offense to squirrelmail is meant here; however there's no way i
>> > could deal with the volume of email i receive with *any* webmail
>> > program.
>>
>> Funny that you should say that.  I've actually migrated away from
>> using "traditional" mail clients to using nothing but SM.  It's
>> nice to have the ability to be able to read all of my mail, using a
>> consistent interface, from ANY location,
>
> i don't know what you mean by "traditional" mail clients; i was
> referring to console based mail clients rather than standard GUI
> clients (the bat, nutscrape, what have you).

Traditional is one where the client is a single application, rather
than a combined web-browser and server side CGI-style thingy, at least
that's how I see it.

> well free ssh clients are available on most platforms, and so i can
> access my mail from anywhere i can download putty, macssh or something
> similar. there are also some java based browser ssh clients...

True, but frequently I'm stuck behind a stupid firewall that only allows
authenticated proxy connections on http ports.  Grrr.  That's why I
installed SM in the first place.

> the capabilities that mutt gives me (many of which i haven't even
> begun to master) allow me to deal with email very efficiently, in a way
> that i've never seen with any GUI mail client (web based or not).

I agree - especially now that it supposedly handles IMAP and Maildir
in a reasonable way - it used to crash if I changed the IMAP mailbox
under it - not the nicest of behaviours..

> despite some of its shortcomings, pine is also a very efficient mail
> client, and a bit easier to use than mutt.

Yes, I used it for a couple of years, and with a powerful enough external
text editor it would be fine.

Bron.