Re: [Evolution] Evo usable as daily/regular mail app?

On 01 Feb 2001 15:05:26 -0800, Chris Bailey wrote:
So, what do people think?  My setup would be using POP, and I'd want to 
make decent use of filters, multiple mail folders (and nested folders), 
be able to read (and sometimes write) HTML mail, and have it be pretty 
quick, even with hundres or thousands of emails in the various folders.

I've been using Evo as my primary mail client for several weeks. But
then I like to live dangerously ;-). I have 100M of accumulated saved
mail from previous Unix, MacOS and Windows setups, which I managed to
convert to Evo with the help of scripts that have been published here
(with some changes to match my needs). 

Things that work well (for me): accessing saved mail, including search;
filters; attachments (but see below), folder navigation.

Things that work less well in the 1/30 snapshot: sendmail (as opposed to
SMTP) mail delivery broken for long messages; viewing certain HTML
messages with attachments; general fragility of message composer
(gtkhtml editing problems).

Is it reasonable to use the CVS version for daily use, or are the 
snapshots more stable?  I'm fine with building it from CVS.  If people 
do think it's good to use, what precautions should I take?  e.g. cron 
job to do a backup of the evolution folder on a nightly basis (or 
more?).  How about the vfolder stuff, is that pretty stable now?

I'm not using vfolders yet. My two precautions:

1. Frequent backup of folder hierarchy (rsync or unison)
2. procmail cloning of raw incoming mail stream to a backup in case mail
retrieval loses messages (this happened a few snapshots ago).

I know this could raise some real debate, etc., and that the list is 
likely biased towards the positive side.  But, I really just want to get 
people's general feeling (and hopefully it's a "yes - use it").

Since last May, I went through:

    1. Emacs VM: bad problems with non-ASCII character sets,
    attachments; very slow;
    inconvenient filtering; limited ans slow search
    2. Balsa: stability issues; no filters; no search
    3. Mahogany: a lot of progress on this one recently, but various
    stability issues,
    inconvenient search, some mail retrieval problems (eg. message
    duplication, filters  don't always run).

Before this, I had used Eudora on MacOS for five years, and on Windows
for a few months. Eudora is way ahead of any current Linux mail client
that I know of, but then it is a really mature, very stable product.
Overall, Evolution is the current Linux offering I know of that is
moving fastest towards the Eudora ideal, but there is still a ways to
go, especially with respect to stability.

-- F

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]