[Discuss] FOSS email that doesn't suck -- does such a thing exist?

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Rich Pieri wrote:
> Dan Ritter wrote:
>> Can you cut cross-platform from your list of requirements if you
>> can *use* the program on any internet-connected machine?
> 
> No, since having an Internet connection is not assured. Having no access
> to existing messages is worse than having a MUA that stinks.

I'm not following the logic. Unless Dan was proposing using a remotely
located MUA via ssh or VNC. That didn't seem to be the case. Instead he
described consolidating filtering/sorting functionality on the IMAP server.

If you can't connect to your IMAP server (which presumably is not
located on your current LAN in this scenario) due to a lack of an
Internet connection, then the consequence is that you can't retrieve new
mail. The same as with any other mail client scenario. Most clients
support some form of offline caching, so your archives will be available.

You may not want to have all your archives cached on all your machines,
but I can't think of any other multi-client solution that both avoids
local caches and doesn't depend on network connectivity while providing
full archive access.


Dan Ritter wrote:
> I use dovecot to serve IMAP/SSL. That's a central
> storage area, and thus a central place to filter. I can read via
> K9 on my phone...

Ditto (Dovecot, Thunderbird, K9, but no mutt)...though I don't have it
fully implemented. I need to update my Dovecot installation and
implement server-size filtering. What technique are you using?


Rich Pieri wrote:
> Thunderbird has some fundamentally broken design flaws that it inherited
> from the Netscape code base. Notable among these are that it is written
> largely in lazy C++...

Lazy C++? Are you saying the performance is bad because it is coded in
verbose C++ instead of minimalist C? What about all the JavaScript it
uses to manage its UI? JS and other high-level languages are going to be
a given for any modern GUI mail client.


> ...and that it uses databases for mail summaries...

Agreed. It also stores state information, like the read flag, deletion,
tags and other things in the index database (at least older versions
did), which is subject to being thrown out and regenerated if TB thinks
it looks out of sync with the mailbox file.

I've seen TB decide to throw out indexes as a result of the mail store
directory being moved to a different path on Windows (the profile was
updated to point to the new location).

I trust Dovecot more than TB for mail storage.


> ...instead of JWZ's fast, light, robust code and caches. 

JWZ? Jamie Zawinski? I don't see any relevant project listed on his
hacks page: http://www.jwz.org/hacks/
Links?


> Never mind that the UI has been a train wreck since version 3.

Agreed. But its usable.

Hopefully someday someone will take over the project and rebuild it.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/