On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:44:44PM -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> There are a couple of reasons I don't just use mutt/procmail as it is:
> mutt's IMAP support has been a little flaky in my experience, and the
> way I deal with my incoming mail doesn't translate too easily into a
> mutt/procmail solution. Procmail could easily filter/file all my mail
> for me where I could read it at my leisure with mutt, but the way I do
> it with Netscape is to have all my incoming mail sitting in my inbox,
> and filters automagically file it away in folders, but only _marks_ it
> deleted in my inbox without actually deleting it until I do it manuall.
> Then, when I've read I read everything in my INBOX, I hit the "clean up
> my INBOX" option and wipe out all the mail that's been filtered
> Hmmm... come to think of it, I bet a procmail recipe could be written
> that copies mail to an appropriate folder, but also leaves a copy in my
> INBOX, only marked "D"eleted, waiting for mutt to purge it. I think
> I'll have to look into that...
I use fetch/proc/mutt as well, and this is similar to what I do. Of the
four or five lists I'm on, some of them just get a "copy" recipe in
procmail, while I read them in mutt and delete them when done. Also have
a cron job to pull down my mail from my ISP's POP3 server about 45
minutes before I get home at night.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:57:58 EDT