[gentoo-user] Email clients

[gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

Hello list,

I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic might be a 
better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were reliable. It isn't, 
though, which drives me to consider alternatives.

Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but first I'd 
need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox format. Is it 
enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do this? It should be, on the 
face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider me paranoid if you like).

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Jack]

On 2023.07.28 20:29, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic  
> might be a
> better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were reliable.  
> It isn't,
> though, which drives me to consider alternatives.
> 
> Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but  
> first I'd
> need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox format. Is  
> it
> enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do this? It should  
> be, on the
> face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider me paranoid if you like).
I've been a happy user of Balsa for many years.  It reads maildir as  
is, no conversion necessary.  Can also use mbox and other formats, and  
does IMAP as well as POP3.

Jack

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Bryan Gardiner]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:29:59 +0100
Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello list,
> 
> I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic
> might be a better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were
> reliable. It isn't, though, which drives me to consider alternatives.
> 
> Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but
> first I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox
> format. Is it enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do
> this? It should be, on the face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider
> me paranoid if you like).

User of Claws with a local maildir here.  One mail per file always
felt safer to me.  If you do want to keep using maildir,
net-mail/dovecot provides IMAP access to ~/.maildir out of the box,
and I've found this combination to be reliable.

Since it's "just" local IMAP, moving data in and out can be done with
most mail clients.  Plus it means you're not tied to a single mail
client going forward.

I do miss KMail's breadth of features though.  Never tried it's
migration tools, sorry.

Cheers,
Bryan

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 29/07/2023 03:37, Bryan Gardiner wrote:
> User of Claws with a local maildir here.  One mail per file always
> felt safer to me.  If you do want to keep using maildir,
> net-mail/dovecot provides IMAP access to ~/.maildir out of the box,
> and I've found this combination to be reliable.

Just a tip which bit me when I first installed dovecot ...

The master config file actually chain-loads a local config file, make 
sure you use it. I edited the master file directly, so of course the 
first update overwrote and trashed it ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]


Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> On 29/07/2023 03:37, Bryan Gardiner wrote:
>> User of Claws with a local maildir here.  One mail per file always
>> felt safer to me.  If you do want to keep using maildir,
>> net-mail/dovecot provides IMAP access to ~/.maildir out of the box,
>> and I've found this combination to be reliable.
>
> Just a tip which bit me when I first installed dovecot ...
>
> The master config file actually chain-loads a local config file, make sure you
> use it. I edited the master file directly, so of course the first update
> overwrote and trashed it ...

That should not happen.  Where's the master config file?  Is it under a
directory masked by CONFIG_PROTECT?

  ~$ portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT
  /etc /usr/share/config

... on my machine (re-run on yours to check)

> Cheers,
> Wol

-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 29/07/2023 11:13, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Wols Lists<antlists@youngman.org.uk>  writes:
> 
>> On 29/07/2023 03:37, Bryan Gardiner wrote:
>>> User of Claws with a local maildir here.  One mail per file always
>>> felt safer to me.  If you do want to keep using maildir,
>>> net-mail/dovecot provides IMAP access to ~/.maildir out of the box,
>>> and I've found this combination to be reliable.
>> Just a tip which bit me when I first installed dovecot ...
>>
>> The master config file actually chain-loads a local config file, make sure you
>> use it. I edited the master file directly, so of course the first update
>> overwrote and trashed it ...

> That should not happen.  Where's the master config file?  Is it under a
> directory masked by CONFIG_PROTECT?

And then the dovecot maintainers update things, update the config file, 
and it breaks for all users because the config version no longer matches 
the program version ...

The master config file is in the obvious place - 
/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf. Just like postfix breaks exactly the same way 
- /etc/postfix/main.cf.

Imho dovecot has got this (almost) exactly right. Just like systemd. You 
have your master file that is updated by the distro, and you have your 
local file that is updated by the sys admin.

dovecot.conf points to a file local.conf, which does not error if it 
doesn't exist, but over-rides dovecot.conf if it does. The proper way to 
do it!

Unlike postfix - where I can't find a place to split my local config 
away from the default config - so every time postfix is updated I have 
to make sure it doesn't try to update main.cf !!!

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2204 bytes --]


Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> On 29/07/2023 11:13, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> Wols Lists<antlists@youngman.org.uk>  writes:
>> 
>>> On 29/07/2023 03:37, Bryan Gardiner wrote:
>>>> User of Claws with a local maildir here.  One mail per file always
>>>> felt safer to me.  If you do want to keep using maildir,
>>>> net-mail/dovecot provides IMAP access to ~/.maildir out of the box,
>>>> and I've found this combination to be reliable.
>>> Just a tip which bit me when I first installed dovecot ...
>>>
>>> The master config file actually chain-loads a local config file, make sure you
>>> use it. I edited the master file directly, so of course the first update
>>> overwrote and trashed it ...
>
>> That should not happen.  Where's the master config file?  Is it under a
>> directory masked by CONFIG_PROTECT?
>
> And then the dovecot maintainers update things, update the config file, and it
> breaks for all users because the config version no longer matches the program
> version ...

I don't recall Dovecot configs being version sensitive.

> The master config file is in the obvious place -
> /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf. Just like postfix breaks exactly the same way -
> /etc/postfix/main.cf.

Then that should not have been overwritten.

> Imho dovecot has got this (almost) exactly right. Just like systemd. You have
> your master file that is updated by the distro, and you have your local file
> that is updated by the sys admin.
> 
> dovecot.conf points to a file local.conf, which does not error if it doesn't
> exist, but over-rides dovecot.conf if it does. The proper way to do it!

I agree, but this is still suspicious.  CONFIG_PROTECT should've
prevented that, and offered dispatch-conf instead.

> Unlike postfix - where I can't find a place to split my local config away from
> the default config - so every time postfix is updated I have to make sure it
> doesn't try to update main.cf !!!

Again, it shouldn't be able to do that.  Please check CONFIG_PROTECT
using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT

It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults.

Have a lovely day.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that.  Please check CONFIG_PROTECT
> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT
> 
> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults.

And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why 
Dovecot does it right, and Postfix does it wrong.

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.)

The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or 
not. I never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me 
etc-update, and it never does any damage.

But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the fundamental 
blunder of mixing distro defaults and local config in the SAME FILE. So 
yes it does offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, I've just trashed 
my local config and have to rebuild it.

At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config 
separate, that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and 
dispatch-conf are gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you 
use dovecot/local.conf, it's a sign of good design by the upstream 
application, and etc-update or dispatch-conf are completely UNNECESSARY.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1727 bytes --]


Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that.  Please check CONFIG_PROTECT
>> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT
>> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults.
>
> And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why Dovecot
> does it right, and Postfix does it wrong.
>
> WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.)
>
> The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or not. I
> never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me etc-update, and
> it never does any damage.
>
> But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the fundamental blunder
> of mixing distro defaults and local config in the SAME FILE. So yes it does
> offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, I've just trashed my local config and
> have to rebuild it.

If portage trashes the local file, something went wrong.  That is the
only thing that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread.
Application design is irrelevant to that.

You say that the opportunity to etc-update is offered?  If so, portage
worked as it should and I'm satisfied, but I'm still confused about how
the contents got trashed.

> At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config separate,
> that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and dispatch-conf are
> gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you use dovecot/local.conf,
> it's a sign of good design by the upstream application, and etc-update or
> dispatch-conf are completely UNNECESSARY.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol


-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 29/07/2023 15:50, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the fundamental blunder
>> of mixing distro defaults and local config in the SAME FILE. So yes it does
>> offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, I've just trashed my local config and
>> have to rebuild it.
> If portage trashes the local file, something went wrong.  That is the
> only thing that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread.
> Application design is irrelevant to that.
> 
> You say that the opportunity to etc-update is offered?  If so, portage
> worked as it should and I'm satisfied, but I'm still confused about how
> the contents got trashed.
> 
Because - with dovecot - I initially made the mistake of editing the 
global file. etc-update over-wrote it.

With postfix, I cannot see any way of NOT editing the global file.

If you go back to what started all this, it was me advising the OP to 
make sure he edited the dovecot local file, not the global one.

And yes, portage is working as it should, but it is working to mitigate 
breakage in the upstream application, namely postfix. Stuff it should 
not need to do.

Cheers,
Wol

[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Nuno Silva]

On 2023-07-29, Wols Lists wrote:

> On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that.  Please check CONFIG_PROTECT
>> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT
>>
>> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults.
>
> And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why
> Dovecot does it right, and Postfix does it wrong.
>
> WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.)
>
> The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or
> not. I never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me
> etc-update, and it never does any damage.
>
> But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the
> fundamental blunder of mixing distro defaults and local config in the
> SAME FILE. So yes it does offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT,
> I've just trashed my local config and have to rebuild it.
>
> At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config
> separate, that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and
> dispatch-conf are gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you
> use dovecot/local.conf, it's a sign of good design by the upstream
> application, and etc-update or dispatch-conf are completely
> UNNECESSARY.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol

If you have a single file both with defaults (either as settings or
commented out) and your changes, you get to see when defaults change,
and it might be easier to notice, handle and adapt if some change
requires adjusting the modified settings.

I'd say having separate files also makes it possible to miss
configuration changes.

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Philip Webb]

230729 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years.
> Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts and I'd like to try it,
> but first I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history
> to mbox format.

I recommend a look at Mutt, which I've used very happily since  c 1998 ,
well before Gentoo existed.  I've also always used Mbox, not Maildir.
Powerful, configurable, but also simple : the UNIX approach.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1396 bytes --]

Am Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 01:53:21AM -0400 schrieb Philip Webb:
> 230729 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years.
> > Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts and I'd like to try it,
> > but first I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history
> > to mbox format.
> 
> I recommend a look at Mutt, which I've used very happily since  c 1998 ,
> well before Gentoo existed.  I've also always used Mbox, not Maildir.
> Powerful, configurable, but also simple : the UNIX approach.

When I had kmail issues back in the day of early akonadi times (remember 
Alan’s thread about data loss from then?), I tried out mutt and I’ve been 
using it ever since. I configured it to my liking re. list layout, sidebar, 
shortcuts, editing and so on.

I still use KMail these days, quite often too. But it has a few drawbacks 
and annoying little bugs that I encounter regularly, which is one reason for 
staying with mutt. Another is that mutt is much much faster when dealing 
with big directories such as lists. Still, there is no better graphical 
alternative in KDE land. Thunderbird & Co don’t fit in optically, Trojita is 
too limited.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

When things went bonkers for the captain, he had the entire ship jettisoned.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday, 30 July 2023 13:07:52 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:

> When I had kmail issues back in the day of early akonadi times (remember
> Alan’s thread about data loss from then?), I tried out mutt and I’ve been
> using it ever since. I configured it to my liking re. list layout, sidebar,
> shortcuts, editing and so on.

I haven't used Mutt in this century. I assume it's still similar in 
appearance.

> I still use KMail these days, quite often too. But it has a few drawbacks
> and annoying little bugs that I encounter regularly, which is one reason for
> staying with mutt. Another is that mutt is much much faster when dealing
> with big directories such as lists. Still, there is no better graphical
> alternative in KDE land. Thunderbird & Co don’t fit in optically, Trojita
> is too limited.

Agreed. A glance at Thunderbird was enough. Never heard of Trojita.

Thanks all for the advice.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:29:59 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but
> first I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox
> format. Is it enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do this?
> It should be, on the face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider me
> paranoid if you like).

Claws works with maildir. However, I'd also recommend setting up Dovecot
locally, then you can try as many mail clients as you want without having
to worry about where the mails are sotred or in what format.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If nothing sticks to Teflon, how do they stick teflon on the pan?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 07:56:21 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:29:59 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but
> > first I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox
> > format. Is it enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do this?
> > It should be, on the face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider me
> > paranoid if you like).
> 
> Claws works with maildir. However, I'd also recommend setting up Dovecot
> locally, then you can try as many mail clients as you want without having
> to worry about where the mails are sotred or in what format.

Hm. I already have Dovecot on my LAN server, because KMail is horribly buggy 
with POP3, which is what my ISP offers. So fetchmail -> postfix -> dovecot 
became necessary before I could use IMAP4 in KMail.

All incoming emails are transferred to my workstation because I like to have 
everything in one place and one backup.

Maybe I'll stick with KMail a bit longer...

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 29/07/2023 12:01, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hm. I already have Dovecot on my LAN server, because KMail is horribly buggy
> with POP3, which is what my ISP offers. So fetchmail -> postfix -> dovecot
> became necessary before I could use IMAP4 in KMail.
> 
> All incoming emails are transferred to my workstation because I like to have
> everything in one place and one backup.
> 
> Maybe I'll stick with KMail a bit longer...

Well then, install Claws and try it - just point it at Dovecot. Okay, I 
use Thunderbird, but there's no reason I have to - I run about 4 
different instances of TB, all pointing at my Dovecot server, and all 
mail is visible on all my computers - the server/workstation, my old 
laptop, my new laptop, my wife's laptop when I borrow it, ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:23:47 +0100, Wols Lists wrote:

> > Hm. I already have Dovecot on my LAN server, because KMail is
> > horribly buggy with POP3, which is what my ISP offers. So fetchmail
> > -> postfix -> dovecot became necessary before I could use IMAP4 in
> > KMail.
> > 
> > All incoming emails are transferred to my workstation because I like
> > to have everything in one place and one backup.
> > 
> > Maybe I'll stick with KMail a bit longer...  
> 
> Well then, install Claws and try it - just point it at Dovecot. Okay, I 
> use Thunderbird, but there's no reason I have to - I run about 4 
> different instances of TB, all pointing at my Dovecot server, and all 
> mail is visible on all my computers - the server/workstation, my old 
> laptop, my new laptop, my wife's laptop when I borrow it, ...

Similarly, I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird.
Neither program cares that I have also used the other to read my mail.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"If Micro built cars, the worlds population would be in decline"

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday, 30 July 2023 20:02:47 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:

> ... I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird. Neither
> program cares that I have also used the other to read my mail.

Ah, but you're using IMAP4 and leaving your emails on the server. I don't want 
to do that.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 23:53:39 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > ... I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird.
> > Neither program cares that I have also used the other to read my
> > mail.  
> 
> Ah, but you're using IMAP4 and leaving your emails on the server. I
> don't want to do that.

But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does it
make?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 31/07/2023 00:11, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 23:53:39 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> 
>>> ... I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird.
>>> Neither program cares that I have also used the other to read my
>>> mail.
>>
>> Ah, but you're using IMAP4 and leaving your emails on the server. I
>> don't want to do that.
> 
> But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does it
> make?
> 
My server IS my workstation. And if *you* don't want to leave your mail 
"centrally", why are you running a dovecot server?

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 08:34:05 BST Wols Lists wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 00:11, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 23:53:39 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >>> ... I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird.
> >>> Neither program cares that I have also used the other to read my
> >>> mail.
> >> 
> >> Ah, but you're using IMAP4 and leaving your emails on the server. I
> >> don't want to do that.
> > 
> > But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does it
> > make?

It's just the way things have 'just growed'. I could start again with the 
server keeping the mails itself, but it's a good deal of work.

> My server IS my workstation. And if *you* don't want to leave your mail
> "centrally", why are you running a dovecot server?

Because KMail is horribly buggy with POP3 and my ISP doesn't offer IMAP4.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:33:18 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > > But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does
> > > it make?  
> 
> It's just the way things have 'just growed'. I could start again with
> the server keeping the mails itself, but it's a good deal of work.

Not really. Once you have set up the server and a folder for it in KMail,
you just move your mails from the local folder to the IMAP one. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I can't walk on water, but I can stagger on alcohol.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 14:26:16 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:33:18 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does
> > > > it make?
> > 
> > It's just the way things have 'just growed'. I could start again with
> > the server keeping the mails itself, but it's a good deal of work.
> 
> Not really. Once you have set up the server and a folder for it in KMail,
> you just move your mails from the local folder to the IMAP one.

Is that all there is to it? I already have it set up, so I hope I'd only have 
to deselect "Download all messages for offline use" and then drag the locally 
stored emails to the IMAP Account, which is shown at the top of the folder 
list, attached. Does that create a copy of the local directory structure?

What should I do about backups of the server?

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

[-- Attachment #2: kmail-folders-few.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 31407 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:03:49 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:

> I already have it set up, so I hope I'd only have to deselect "Download all
> messages for offline use" and then drag the locally stored emails to the IMAP
> Account, which is shown at the top of the folder list, attached. Does that
> create a copy of the local directory structure?

Hah! I just tried the folder-move function in KMail, and it crashed. 79 emails 
and 2.2MB.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:25:20 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:03:49 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I already have it set up, so I hope I'd only have to deselect "Download
> > all
> > messages for offline use" and then drag the locally stored emails to the
> > IMAP Account, which is shown at the top of the folder list, attached.
> > Does that create a copy of the local directory structure?
> 
> Hah! I just tried the folder-move function in KMail, and it crashed. 79
> emails and 2.2MB.

It wasn't too hard after all, mostly. I still have sent-mail, outbox, 
wastebin, drafts and templates locally.

I thought I should be able to specify where outgoing mail should be put, but I 
can't find it now.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:26:03 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> I thought I should be able to specify where outgoing mail should be
> put, but I can't find it now.

That's a setting in the mail client.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

IBM: Itty Bitty Mentality

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 19:13:19 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:26:03 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I thought I should be able to specify where outgoing mail should be
> > put, but I can't find it now.
> 
> That's a setting in the mail client.

Kmail Settings > Accounts > Identities > Advanced > Sent-mail folder.

Also set the Outgoing Account at the same time to configure your SMTP.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 19:17:17 BST Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 19:13:19 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:26:03 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > I thought I should be able to specify where outgoing mail should be
> > > put, but I can't find it now.
> > 
> > That's a setting in the mail client.
> 
> Kmail Settings > Accounts > Identities > Advanced > Sent-mail folder.

Ah. I didn't expect to find it under Identities. Odd.

> Also set the Outgoing Account at the same time to configure your SMTP.

Of course. Long since done.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 773 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 10:53:15 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 19:17:17 BST Michael wrote:
> > On Monday, 31 July 2023 19:13:19 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:26:03 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > I thought I should be able to specify where outgoing mail should be
> > > > put, but I can't find it now.
> > > 
> > > That's a setting in the mail client.
> > 
> > Kmail Settings > Accounts > Identities > Advanced > Sent-mail folder.
> 
> Ah. I didn't expect to find it under Identities. Odd.

The idea being to separate the SMTP server and corresponding authentication 
credentials you may send messages with, from the Sent Folder(s) each sent 
messages is saved in, while using different 'From' email account identities.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 11:42:55 BST Michael wrote:

> The idea being to separate the SMTP server and corresponding authentication
> credentials you may send messages with, from the Sent Folder(s) each sent
> messages is saved in, while using different 'From' email account identities.

It seems I have a non-standard use of identities: I use them to include 
different personal details in my signature, not for separate personas in 
different cases.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:25:20 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:03:49 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I already have it set up, so I hope I'd only have to deselect "Download
> > all
> > messages for offline use" and then drag the locally stored emails to the
> > IMAP Account, which is shown at the top of the folder list, attached.
> > Does that create a copy of the local directory structure?
> 
> Hah! I just tried the folder-move function in KMail, and it crashed. 79
> emails and 2.2MB.

I have used Kmail to download large-ish IMAP folders (4000+ messages and 
~800MB) to local folders, then upload them to different remote IMAP account/
folder.

It has worked reliably here and ought to work in your case too, if:

- Your Internet connectivity is stable and the bandwidth is > than dial up, or 
you work locally with dovecot.

- You create the local/remote Kmail folders first and then copy messages over 
in small numbers.  About 50-100 at a time should do it, depending on size of 
attachments.

- You remain patient until the messages have downloaded, but then you really 
remain patient until akonadi finishes indexing them.  This may take longer 
than you wish.[1]

- Do not start with another folder, until the current folder migration has 
completed successfully and you can verify the content of at least a sample of 
messages has landed where you expect it to be.

[1] Sometimes synchronising a large number of messages/folders will appear to 
be stuck, because Kmail won't display it.  A workaround I use is to close 
Kmail and run in a terminal:

akonadictl fsck
akonadictl vacuum

waiting for each command to finish, before I restart Kmail.  This is not a 
regular occurrence, but when Kmail misbehaves the above forces a sync so the 
next batch of emails can be copied over.

HTH.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 18:57:59 BST Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:25:20 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Monday, 31 July 2023 17:03:49 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > I already have it set up, so I hope I'd only have to deselect "Download
> > > all
> > > messages for offline use" and then drag the locally stored emails to the
> > > IMAP Account, which is shown at the top of the folder list, attached.
> > > Does that create a copy of the local directory structure?
> > 
> > Hah! I just tried the folder-move function in KMail, and it crashed. 79
> > emails and 2.2MB.
> 
> I have used Kmail to download large-ish IMAP folders (4000+ messages and
> ~800MB) to local folders, then upload them to different remote IMAP account/
> folder.
> 
> It has worked reliably here and ought to work in your case too, if:

It works here too now. I don't know what caused that one blip.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:03:49 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> What should I do about backups of the server?

Don't bother, hard disks are dead reliable these days ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

.sig a .sog of sixpence.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 31/07/2023 13:33, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 08:34:05 BST Wols Lists wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 00:11, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 23:53:39 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>>> ... I use Claws 99% of the time, but occasionally run Thunderbird.
>>>>> Neither program cares that I have also used the other to read my
>>>>> mail.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but you're using IMAP4 and leaving your emails on the server. I
>>>> don't want to do that.
>>>
>>> But you're running the IMAP server locally, so what difference does it
>>> make?
> 
> It's just the way things have 'just growed'. I could start again with the
> server keeping the mails itself, but it's a good deal of work.
> 
>> My server IS my workstation. And if *you* don't want to leave your mail
>> "centrally", why are you running a dovecot server?
> 
> Because KMail is horribly buggy with POP3 and my ISP doesn't offer IMAP4.
> 
I'm trying to get my head round your setup then.

My setup is simple. I couldn't get postfix/fetchmail to behave, so my 
workstation/server runs dovecot.

Thunderbird (on my server) has an account pointing at my ISP, that 
retrieves all my mail and moves it into dovecot. Am I right you've got 
postfix/fetchmail working correctly? All you need to do is make it chuck 
it into dovecot on your server (or not even that).

But the point is, if you have a working instance of dovecot, and you are 
using kmail/imap4 to read your emails FROM DOVECOT, just point claws at 
dovecot as well.

Or are you using kmail/pop3 to pull your emails from dovecot into your 
local kmail instance?

The big question that needs answering is "Are you storing your emails in 
dovecot, or in kmail?"

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 15:19:22 BST Wols Lists wrote:

> The big question that needs answering is "Are you storing your emails in
> dovecot, or in kmail?"

In KMail.

My server has fetchmail -> postfix -> dovecot. Fetchmail collects POP3 emails 
from my ISP and forwards it to postfix, and dovecot serves IMAP4 to my 
workstation.

My backup method is simple: I archive KMail's emails daily to a local disk, 
then shut the system down on a Sunday to back up the entire system to an 
external USB-3 disk.

The server is taken down on a Saturday for complete system backup, to another 
USB-3 disk.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Wols Lists]

On 31/07/2023 16:55, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 31 July 2023 15:19:22 BST Wols Lists wrote:
> 
>> The big question that needs answering is "Are you storing your emails in
>> dovecot, or in kmail?"
> 
> In KMail.
> 
> My server has fetchmail -> postfix -> dovecot. Fetchmail collects POP3 emails
> from my ISP and forwards it to postfix, and dovecot serves IMAP4 to my
> workstation.

So if Dovecot is serving IMAP4 to your workstation, the emails should be 
in dovecot, and cached on your workstation. For my setup, they're stored 
in dovecot, and cached in thunderbird ...
> 
> My backup method is simple: I archive KMail's emails daily to a local disk,
> then shut the system down on a Sunday to back up the entire system to an
> external USB-3 disk.

If kmail is caching them, chances are they're stashed away in the .kmail 
directory or wherever, in some standard format, and you can just back 
that up.
> 
> The server is taken down on a Saturday for complete system backup, to another
> USB-3 disk.
> 
Perfect, they're now backed up all over the place :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 19:51:26 BST Wols Lists wrote:

> So if Dovecot is serving IMAP4 to your workstation, the emails should be
> in dovecot, and cached on your workstation. For my setup, they're stored
> in dovecot, and cached in thunderbird ...

Almost. KMail has a 'Download messages for offline use' option, which I've had 
set until now.

> > My backup method is simple: I archive KMail's emails daily to a local
> > disk,
> > then shut the system down on a Sunday to back up the entire system to an
> > external USB-3 disk.
> 
> If kmail is caching them, chances are they're stashed away in the .kmail
> directory or wherever, in some standard format, and you can just back
> that up.

Yes, I'm doing that. It now takes longer to make the backup because the emails 
have to be fetched from the server.

> > The server is taken down on a Saturday for complete system backup, to
> > another USB-3 disk.
> 
> Perfect, they're now backed up all over the place :-)

Quite so.  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2555 bytes --]

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 01:29:59 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic might be
> a better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were reliable. It
> isn't, though, which drives me to consider alternatives.

I've been using Kmail since the good ol' KDE3 days.  Back then it worked at 
least as good if not better than any other mail client I had tried.  With the 
move to KDE4, Kmail became the worse mail client I have ever used.  I mean, 
*catastrophically* worse!  Both for the messages involved and for my nerves.  
Initially I blamed sqlite, which I was using as its back end for a season, but 
things were not much better with mysql.  At some point I tried postgresql, 
which was more robust.  Over the years the code matured.  For some years now, 
Kmail is quite stable.  There are still a couple of glitches with its GUI, 
e.g. the columns width has a mind of its own and recently its Korganizer 
sister application notifications cannot be snoozed for a short period of time, 
but overall it works without any drama.


> Claws mail is often mentioned hereabouts, and I'd like to try it, but first
> I'd need to export KMail's 20-odd-year maildir history to mbox format.

Among many other email applications, I gave Claws a spin.  A couple of months 
later I abandoned it, because I ended up spending more time trying to bend it 
out of shape to behave like Kmail (from keybindings, to layout, to 
attachments, etc.) than I was spending using it.  Soon, my attempts to change 
its behaviour hit a wall of non-adjustable hardcoded features.  I don't blame 
Claws for this, rather my brain which had been accustomed to work with Kmail.

The mbox single file format is something I tried to move away from since the 
90s, because as it grows in size it becomes more prone to corruption.  Losing 
one message may be tolerable, but losing the lot less so.  Sure, backups exist 
for a reason, but why accept architectural weaknesses if there is the more 
modern alternative of maildir?


> Is
> it enough to run KMail's Import/Export Data tool to do this? It should be,
> on the face of it, but I'm suspicious (consider me paranoid if you like).

I'll echo the recommendation for dovecot, plus backup(s).  If things go 
sideways during your experiment, you can rinse and repeat.  This is just good 
practice.

That said, I have used the Kmail Import/Export data tool in the past to move 
messages between Kmail and Thunderbird.  It worked, but can't recall the 
details.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Matt Connell]

On Sat, 2023-07-29 at 01:29 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic
> might be a better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were
> reliable. It isn't, though, which drives me to consider alternatives.

To present an alternative that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread:
Evolution.  

- Fully featured (calendar, contacts, tasks, memos)
- Oauth2 support
- Exchange Web Services support
- sane defaults
- sqlite database storage (as opposed to Akonadi's mysql)
- active community  mailing list.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 02:12:00 BST Matt Connell wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-07-29 at 01:29 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I've been a loyal user of KMail for many years. (Loyal? Masochistic
> > might be a better word.) It suits me exactly - or it would if it were
> > reliable. It isn't, though, which drives me to consider alternatives.
> 
> To present an alternative that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread:
> Evolution.  
> 
> - Fully featured (calendar, contacts, tasks, memos)
> - Oauth2 support
> - Exchange Web Services support
> - sane defaults
> - sqlite database storage (as opposed to Akonadi's mysql)
> - active community  mailing list.

I'll have a look at it - thanks.

I see it's a gnome program and has 17 new dependencies (to this box).

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Matt Connell]

On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 17:14 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I see it's a gnome program and has 17 new dependencies (to this box).

Unfortunately one of them is webkit-gtk, which, if you don't have it
already, is a compilation lift.

Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire web
engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who
knows full well what the answer is.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Alexe Stefan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 241 bytes --]

>
> Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire web
> engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who
> knows full well what the answer is.
>

What is the answer?
Mutt doesn't need a web engine.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 664 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Matt Connell]

On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 20:16 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> > Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire
> > web
> > engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who
> > knows full well what the answer is.
> 
> What is the answer?
> Mutt doesn't need a web engine.

For the reason that you just demonstrated for the class: HTML emails.

Now, your simple mail shows just fine in a plain text only mail client,
but in my world, and I'd wager most people's world, handling HTML
messages (which includes CSS for legibility) is a necessity to some
varying degree.

Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
worth dying on but this isn't mine.

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Kusoneko]

Jul 31, 2023 13:23:21 Matt Connell <matt@connell.tech>:

> On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 20:16 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
>>> Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire
>>> web
>>> engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who
>>> knows full well what the answer is.
>> 
>> What is the answer?
>> Mutt doesn't need a web engine.
> 
> For the reason that you just demonstrated for the class: HTML emails.
> 
> Now, your simple mail shows just fine in a plain text only mail client,
> but in my world, and I'd wager most people's world, handling HTML
> messages (which includes CSS for legibility) is a necessity to some
> varying degree.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser or with something like w3m. There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a perfectly workable web engine in the browser. You can easily reply to html mail in plain text either way, and most html mail are marketing or newsletter emails from companies where replying isn't needed anyways.

[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Grant Edwards]

On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
>> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
>> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
>
> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser
> or with something like w3m.

Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt
didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no
need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email.

> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a
> perfectly workable web engine in the browser.

Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do
that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so
on. It's a lot of work.

> You can easily reply to html mail in plain text either way,

Some other MUAs handle plain text acceptably, some don't.  After I saw
how badly Outlook displayed my plaintext e-mails, I tried using
markdown to auto-magically send mixed-mode text/html emails (see
muttdown). That worked OK, but was a hassle.

I eventually gave up and switched to Thunderbird.

> and most html mail are marketing or newsletter emails from companies
> where replying isn't needed anyways.

Most of the HTML mail that lands in my inbox is from friends, family
and colleagues.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Kusoneko]

Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>:

> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
>>> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
>>> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
>>
>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser
>> or with something like w3m.
>
> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt
> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no
> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email.

Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you already have a web browser to do that job? I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of software, including one in everything massively increases the compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into.

>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a
>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser.
>
> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do
> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so
> on. It's a lot of work.

I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for most people is unnoticeable. At most they might use a specific font, text color, font size and maybe include an image or 2 which will land in the attachments anyways. Displaying the text with those unnecessary stylistic changes that only really pleases the eye of the writer makes the whole thing pointless. You could just as easily strip all the HTML from the email and leave only the text and attachments and you'd get a much better experience on the receiving end.

>> You can easily reply to html mail in plain text either way,
>
> Some other MUAs handle plain text acceptably, some don't.  After I saw
> how badly Outlook displayed my plaintext e-mails, I tried using
> markdown to auto-magically send mixed-mode text/html emails (see
> muttdown). That worked OK, but was a hassle.
>
> I eventually gave up and switched to Thunderbird.

If a MUA can't handle plain text, that's technically not your problem but the MUA's dev's problem.

>> and most html mail are marketing or newsletter emails from companies
>> where replying isn't needed anyways.
>
> Most of the HTML mail that lands in my inbox is from friends, family
> and colleagues.

Like I said earlier, for friends and family, most are likely plain text with extra steps, with perhaps a few attachments. The colleagues one is likely mostly the same except for a few exceptions and the signatures. They also usually get Google Suite or Office365 for their email stuff, which essentially means that for them specifically you can just go with the... ugh... webmail client they offer.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Matt Connell]

On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 14:46 -0400, Kusoneko wrote:
> Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you already have a web browser to do that job? I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of software, including one in everything massively increases the compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into.

This is why webkit-gtk exists as it does: so it can fulfill this role
as part of multiple packages.  I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it
isn't completely nonsensical to have "browser as a library/module".

> > 
> > Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do
> > that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so
> > on. It's a lot of work.
> 
> I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for most people is unnoticeable.

Or your company forcibly converts emails to HTML so that it can apply a
signature, and you have no say in the matter.  Like mine.  So I write
HTML mails from the get-go so I can have a (better) chance to ensure
they are formatted correctly.

[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Grant Edwards]

On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
>
> Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
>>>> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
>>>> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
>>>
>>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser
>>> or with something like w3m.
>>
>> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt
>> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no
>> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email.
>
> Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you
> already have a web browser to do that job?

I don't want a mail client that's also a web browser. I want a mail
client that renders HTML. That's only a small small of what a web
browser does. Most of what a web browser does these days is provide an
environment in which to run JavaScript.

> I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web
> browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of
> software, including one in everything massively increases the
> compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into.

That's because they do a lot more than just render HTML.

>>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a
>>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser.
>>
>> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do
>> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so
>> on. It's a lot of work.
>
> I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest
> here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with
> complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only
> difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for
> most people is unnoticeable.

I found that not to be the case for the Outlook users to whom I sent
e-mails. I was unable to figure out how to get mutt to generate
plaintext e-mails that were rendered properly by Outlook (e.g. using a
fixed font, honoring newlines and multiple spaces, etc.) in Outlook.

It's also difficult to get plaintext e-mails to display in a
reasonable way on both a large screen and a small screen
(i.e. phone). I was not happy seeing what my plaintext, 72 column
e-mails looked like on a small phone screen.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[David Rosenbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2686 bytes --]

David

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, 4:22 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
> >
> > Jul 31, 2023 13:52:25 Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On 2023-07-31, Kusoneko <kusoneko@kusoneko.moe> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
> >>>> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
> >>>> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
> >>>
> >>> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser
> >>> or with something like w3m.
> >>
> >> Wait -- those are web engines. I thought the argument was that mutt
> >> didn't need a web engine. If that was the case, then you would have no
> >> need to set up mutt to use them to display HTML email.
> >
> > Why would you want a mail client to also be a web browser when you
> > already have a web browser to do that job?
>
> I don't want a mail client that's also a web browser. I want a mail
> client that renders HTML. That's only a small small of what a web
> browser does. Most of what a web browser does these days is provide an
> environment in which to run JavaScript.
>
> > I will never understand the mindset of trying to include web
> > browsers into everything. Web browsers are massive pieces of
> > software, including one in everything massively increases the
> > compile time and resource usage of the software it's added into.
>
> That's because they do a lot more than just render HTML.
>
> >>> There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a
> >>> perfectly workable web engine in the browser.
> >>
> >> Composing HTML also e-mails requires a web-engine. Sure, you can do
> >> that using emacs, markdown mode, a web browser for previewing, and so
> >> on. It's a lot of work.
> >
> > I don't get the point of composing HTML emails. Let's be honest
> > here, unless you're writing emails as part of a company with
> > complicated messes of html signatures or marketing emails, the only
> > difference between composing a plain text email and a html email for
> > most people is unnoticeable.
>
> I found that not to be the case for the Outlook users to whom I sent
> e-mails. I was unable to figure out how to get mutt to generate
> plaintext e-mails that were rendered properly by Outlook (e.g. using a
> fixed font, honoring newlines and multiple spaces, etc.) in Outlook.
>
> It's also difficult to get plaintext e-mails to display in a
> reasonable way on both a large screen and a small screen
> (i.e. phone). I was not happy seeing what my plaintext, 72 column
> e-mails looked like on a small phone screen.
>
> --
> Grant
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3558 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Laurence Perkins]

> Jul 31, 2023 13:23:21 Matt Connell <matt@connell.tech>:
> 
> > On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 20:16 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> >>> Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire 
> >>> web engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people 
> >>> who knows full well what the answer is.
> >> 
> >> What is the answer?
> >> Mutt doesn't need a web engine.
> > 
> > For the reason that you just demonstrated for the class: HTML emails.
> > 
> > Now, your simple mail shows just fine in a plain text only mail 
> > client, but in my world, and I'd wager most people's world, handling 
> > HTML messages (which includes CSS for legibility) is a necessity to 
> > some varying degree.
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not 
> > going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills 
> > worth dying on but this isn't mine.
> Iirc, you can setup mutt to open html emails either in a web browser or with something like w3m. There's no need for a web engine in a mail client when you have a perfectly workable web engine in the browser. You can easily reply to html mail in plain text either way, and most html mail are marketing or newsletter emails from companies where replying isn't needed anyways.
> 

That is totally not true any more unfortunately.  The vast majority of email clients and web interfaces used by the technopeasants send HTML mail by default.  So unless you're one of the lucky few who exchange emails only with fellow hackers you can expect to have to deal with a lot of HTML mail.

Still, you don't technically need to have the HTML engine *in* the client itself...  But that does make opening the silly things a bit quicker.

LMP

Re: [gentoo-user] Email clients

[Jack]

On 2023.07.31 13:23, Matt Connell wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 20:16 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> > > Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire
> > > web
> > > engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people  
> who
> > > knows full well what the answer is.
> >
> > What is the answer?
> > Mutt doesn't need a web engine.
> 
> For the reason that you just demonstrated for the class: HTML emails.
> 
> Now, your simple mail shows just fine in a plain text only mail  
> client,
> but in my world, and I'd wager most people's world, handling HTML
> messages (which includes CSS for legibility) is a necessity to some
> varying degree.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm "team plaintext" all day every day but I'm not
> going to make my life more difficult on principles.  There are hills
> worth dying on but this isn't mine.
I haven't tried it in a while, but Carbonyl  
(https://github.com/fathyb/carbonyl) is a web browser that runs in a  
terminal.  I wonder if it could be used for a text based email client  
to actually display HTML emails, without the overhead of one of the big  
graphics libs.

[gentoo-user] Re: Email clients

[Grant Edwards]

On 2023-07-31, Alexe Stefan <stefanalexe48@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Normally I would be in the chorus of "why do I need a whole entire web
>> engine for an email client" but I'm also in the group of people who
>> knows full well what the answer is.
>>
>
> What is the answer?

Most of us don't like reading HTML.

> Mutt doesn't need a web engine.

You must get e-mail from a different sort of sender than I do.

--
Grant