GUI email clients vs. CLI email clients

macdaemon · 06-06-2003, 09:53 AM

Right now I use Mail.app, but it's a little bit slow on large email volumes.
What are the advantages of CLI email clients (like pine or mutt) vs. Mail.app?
Will CLI email client be better for me since I need to access several email accounts from several computers (at home and at office) and keep all of them current?

grrl_geek · 06-06-2003, 12:45 PM

I don't know much about pine, but IMAP-style mail will do what you want - have your mail syncronized on multiple computers. With IMAP, your mail is stored on the mail server, not locally as with POP (which seems to be what you have).

You might ask your mail host if they do IMAP mail.

yellow · 06-06-2003, 12:49 PM

pine/elm = blech & only in an emergancy
The GUIfied clients make life easier, the CLI ones are throwbacks. Think of all the nifty little bells and whistles in the GUIfied clients.. you won't get any of that in pine or elm.
Using Mail(.app) I access several (6) different email accounts form several different places (3) and have no troubles keeping everything current.
I stopped using pine in 1994.

grrl_geek · 06-06-2003, 04:03 PM

One thing you might not know about with POP mail is that you can tell your email application to leave mail on your mail server for some number of days. Normally, POP will delete messages from the server as it downloads them, so if you go to another computer and hit Check Mail you won't see anything.

I believe when you tell it to leave mail on the server, when you go to a different computer, it will download the messages it doesn't have. (I believe that's correct. Somebody chime in if its not)

In Mail, go into the Accounts setting and hit Edit. Then go over to the Advanced tab and check "Remove Copy from Server after retrieving a message" and set it to "one month" (or one week if you get a lot of mail)

Do this for every computer you check mail on. This way, there will be a month's backlog of mail on the server, so it should be easy to get all of your mail on all of your computers.

Hope that helps.

[edit] I didn't notice your note about Mail being slow. You might check out Eudora, which is pretty fast even on big mailboxes. The disadvantage is that you don't get Mail's spam filtering, which is part of the reason why it's slow.

yellow · 06-06-2003, 04:22 PM

Eudora 6 (still in beta) has added Bayesian spam filtering (the same as Mail.app).

Part of the reason you might be slow is if you're using IMAP. POP is much faster.

Jacques · 06-06-2003, 04:44 PM

IMAP using the latest Eudora is probably the fastest email client you can find on Mac OS X, for working with large email databases that must be used across different computers.

pmccann · 06-08-2003, 10:04 PM

Just a quick word here: I use mutt for mail almost exclusively and find that far from "blech" it's more often "aaaaah". That said, when things get attachment heavy a GUI client comes into its own. But for 99% of the time it's just plain, beautiful, slick, swift, powerful mutt for me.

[[So don't be put off by the naysayers! There's undoubtedly a lot to learn before a terminal-based mail client pays its way, but in the same way that learning something like vi(m) continues to pay dividends long after the initial pain passes, these mail clients will bring a smile to your face again and again. And if you're ever stuck behind a network connection where you can almost count the bits going down the line you'll appreciate the lightweight freedom they offer. Anyway, doubtless they're not for everyone so I'll give it a rest now!]]

Cheers,
Paul

Oh yeah: I can't help but think that elm should be accompanied by a parenthetical RIP whenever mentioned. Mutt is its logical (and technical) successor, and does lots of things so much better that the former should be only mentioned to those with an old-time investment in the beast. (In particular, I'm *still* working to get my old boss from elm (RIP) to mutt; dogs, tricks, etc...) {I've tried to refrain from giving my opinion on pine. And.... succeeded. Phew.}

Jacques · 06-09-2003, 10:41 AM

I may try Mutt, do you run it using X11 or Mac OS X?

yellow · 06-09-2003, 11:18 AM

Sounds like you'd use mutt in an xterm or Terminal window, so either X11 or Aqua.. whichever you prefer.

For me, I will stick with a GUIfied mail prog. I agree with you that it's good to have something to fall back on in the CLI, but for me, I receive many attachments everyday, so a CLI mail client just add benefits.

jbc · 06-09-2003, 11:47 AM

Mutt can be run interactively from the terminal or non-interactively via shell scripts.

In non-interactive mode, mutt has some distinct advantages as far as *sending* mail also.

One of my first jobs on OS X was to redo the automated sending of emailed PDF reports to clients from our database using Applescript. You can accomplish this with Mail.app, but it's very clunky and busy with much opening and closing of windows.

Decided to look at CLI options and could not find anything that would properly handle attachments until I found mutt. Works beautifully. Now mutt transparently creates the emails with attachments in the background, and they get sent out automatically by our MTA next time we start up our dial-in connection. For our automation needs, mutt turned out to be a much better solution than Mail.app...something else to be said for having mutt installed on your system.

Jacques · 06-09-2003, 12:47 PM

Mutt.

Pine vs Mutt.

Gimpy00Wang · 06-14-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:


	Originally posted by pmccann Just a quick word here: I use mutt for mail almost exclusively and find that far from "blech" it's more often "aaaaah". That said, when things get attachment heavy a GUI client comes into its own. But for 99% of the time it's just plain, beautiful, slick, swift, powerful mutt for me. [[So don't be put off by the naysayers! There's undoubtedly a lot to learn before a terminal-based mail client pays its way, but in the same way that learning something like vi(m) continues to pay dividends long after the initial pain passes, these mail clients will bring a smile to your face again and again. And if you're ever stuck behind a network connection where you can almost count the bits going down the line you'll appreciate the lightweight freedom they offer. Anyway, doubtless they're not for everyone so I'll give it a rest now!]] Cheers, Paul Oh yeah: I can't help but think that elm should be accompanied by a parenthetical RIP whenever mentioned. Mutt is its logical (and technical) successor, and does lots of things so much better that the former should be only mentioned to those with an old-time investment in the beast. (In particular, I'm still working to get my old boss from elm (RIP) to mutt; dogs, tricks, etc...) {I've tried to refrain from giving my opinion on pine. And.... succeeded. Phew.}

Wow...you put that very well!

I use Pine and have done so for several years. I have used Mutt for a while as well and it _is_ very configurable, which makes it very powerfull. Now, if you're considering playing with Mutt, set asside some time to play with the config file(s) as the options are extensive and often confuse new Mutt users.

I would suggest fiddling with both and choose whichever "feels" better...which might be neither!

- G!mpy

06-06-2003, 09:53 AM	#1
macdaemon Prospect Join Date: May 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 7	GUI email clients vs. CLI email clients Right now I use Mail.app, but it's a little bit slow on large email volumes. What are the advantages of CLI email clients (like pine or mutt) vs. Mail.app? Will CLI email client be better for me since I need to access several email accounts from several computers (at home and at office) and keep all of them current?

06-06-2003, 12:49 PM	#3
yellow Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10,677	pine/elm = blech & only in an emergancy The GUIfied clients make life easier, the CLI ones are throwbacks. Think of all the nifty little bells and whistles in the GUIfied clients.. you won't get any of that in pine or elm. Using Mail(.app) I access several (6) different email accounts form several different places (3) and have no troubles keeping everything current. I stopped using pine in 1994. Last edited by yellow; 06-06-2003 at 12:53 PM.

06-06-2003, 04:03 PM	#4
grrl_geek Major Leaguer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 270	One thing you might not know about with POP mail is that you can tell your email application to leave mail on your mail server for some number of days. Normally, POP will delete messages from the server as it downloads them, so if you go to another computer and hit Check Mail you won't see anything. I believe when you tell it to leave mail on the server, when you go to a different computer, it will download the messages it doesn't have. (I believe that's correct. Somebody chime in if its not) In Mail, go into the Accounts setting and hit Edit. Then go over to the Advanced tab and check "Remove Copy from Server after retrieving a message" and set it to "one month" (or one week if you get a lot of mail) Do this for every computer you check mail on. This way, there will be a month's backlog of mail on the server, so it should be easy to get all of your mail on all of your computers. Hope that helps. [edit] I didn't notice your note about Mail being slow. You might check out Eudora, which is pretty fast even on big mailboxes. The disadvantage is that you don't get Mail's spam filtering, which is part of the reason why it's slow. Last edited by grrl_geek; 06-06-2003 at 04:05 PM.

06-09-2003, 12:47 PM	#11
Jacques All Star Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 972	Mutt. Pine vs Mutt. Last edited by Jacques; 06-09-2003 at 12:52 PM.

06-06-2003, 12:45 PM	#2
grrl_geek Major Leaguer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 270	I don't know much about pine, but IMAP-style mail will do what you want - have your mail syncronized on multiple computers. With IMAP, your mail is stored on the mail server, not locally as with POP (which seems to be what you have). You might ask your mail host if they do IMAP mail.

06-06-2003, 04:22 PM	#5
yellow Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10,677	Eudora 6 (still in beta) has added Bayesian spam filtering (the same as Mail.app). Part of the reason you might be slow is if you're using IMAP. POP is much faster.

06-06-2003, 04:44 PM	#6
Jacques All Star Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 972	IMAP using the latest Eudora is probably the fastest email client you can find on Mac OS X, for working with large email databases that must be used across different computers.

06-08-2003, 10:04 PM	#7
pmccann Major Leaguer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 470	Just a quick word here: I use mutt for mail almost exclusively and find that far from "blech" it's more often "aaaaah". That said, when things get attachment heavy a GUI client comes into its own. But for 99% of the time it's just plain, beautiful, slick, swift, powerful mutt for me. [[So don't be put off by the naysayers! There's undoubtedly a lot to learn before a terminal-based mail client pays its way, but in the same way that learning something like vi(m) continues to pay dividends long after the initial pain passes, these mail clients will bring a smile to your face again and again. And if you're ever stuck behind a network connection where you can almost count the bits going down the line you'll appreciate the lightweight freedom they offer. Anyway, doubtless they're not for everyone so I'll give it a rest now!]] Cheers, Paul Oh yeah: I can't help but think that elm should be accompanied by a parenthetical RIP whenever mentioned. Mutt is its logical (and technical) successor, and does lots of things so much better that the former should be only mentioned to those with an old-time investment in the beast. (In particular, I'm still working to get my old boss from elm (RIP) to mutt; dogs, tricks, etc...) {I've tried to refrain from giving my opinion on pine. And.... succeeded. Phew.}

06-09-2003, 10:41 AM	#8
Jacques All Star Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 972	I may try Mutt, do you run it using X11 or Mac OS X?

06-09-2003, 11:18 AM	#9
yellow Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 10,677	Sounds like you'd use mutt in an xterm or Terminal window, so either X11 or Aqua.. whichever you prefer. For me, I will stick with a GUIfied mail prog. I agree with you that it's good to have something to fall back on in the CLI, but for me, I receive many attachments everyday, so a CLI mail client just add benefits.

06-09-2003, 11:47 AM	#10
jbc All Star Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Chico, CA Posts: 686	Mutt can be run interactively from the terminal or non-interactively via shell scripts. In non-interactive mode, mutt has some distinct advantages as far as sending mail also. One of my first jobs on OS X was to redo the automated sending of emailed PDF reports to clients from our database using Applescript. You can accomplish this with Mail.app, but it's very clunky and busy with much opening and closing of windows. Decided to look at CLI options and could not find anything that would properly handle attachments until I found mutt. Works beautifully. Now mutt transparently creates the emails with attachments in the background, and they get sent out automatically by our MTA next time we start up our dial-in connection. For our automation needs, mutt turned out to be a much better solution than Mail.app...something else to be said for having mutt installed on your system.