On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:18:47AM -0400, Ian! D. Allen wrote: > How does that compare speed-wise with using ssh to go to where the > mail is and running mutt there? Hard to compare. You generally run offlineimap in the background somewhere and it keeps your local maildir folders synchronised with the server's. It periodically scans some folders, compares the scan with its own metadata, and only has to download new messages. Scan speed is dependent on the size of the folder. I use configuration parameters to exclude my giant "archive" folders. Once synchronised, accessing your mail occurs at disk speed the first time, and at disk cache speed on subsequent times. Hence extremely fast, often moreso than even IMAP to localhost. You can also run it as a once-off to sync all folders -- ideal for the "dial up, sync, disconnect" style of use. Effectively, it's the POP of IMAP, except it keeps mail on the server and does bidirectional synchronisation. > The advantage of using ssh is that any O/S runs something equivalent > to ssh. Not so many things run mutt, Any maildir supporting client will do. > and I don't want to be pulling my mail down to a public > machine anyway. Obviously. It's meant for systems you own and control. Laptops and other machines with intermittent connections will benefit most. The primary advantage is having your IMAP mail even when you are not in contact with your IMAP server. Secondary benefits include performance, as well as reading your IMAP mail with MUAs that lack or have sub-optimal IMAP support.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature