A Decent Mail Program

jlowell · 2003-09-26 03:51:20

After some tinkering, I must admit that I like Firebird. I've now got it installed in a set-up which employs xfwm4 as a stand-alone WM (very quick), aterm and gkrellm. To persist with this speedy but no frllls setup means, of course, no e-mail. I'd appreciate having the recommendation of a stand-alone e-mail programs that would function well and look decent. Thoughts?

jlowell

hcman · 2003-09-26 04:02:24

how about Pine?
I think pine in a transparent terminal looks real nice. And it's fast and very good.

A fast non-cli client would be sylpheed. I think balsa is also pretty fast. Haven't work with it much though.

HC

jlowell · 2003-09-26 04:11:11

hcman,

Thanks, HC, I'll take a look at them all. Since long ago giving up on DEs, the only mail program I've used here has been mozilla-mail. Using Firebird gives me the excuse to explore a bit.

jlowell

sarah31 · 2003-09-26 04:17:15

there is also mutt

jlowell · 2003-09-26 04:57:34

Sarah31,

Thanks, Sarah!

jlowell

jlowell · 2003-09-26 05:10:14

hcman & Sarah31,

Well, looking at all of these recommended packages, sylpheed seemed to me the most attractive. It's graphical, and with a mail program I prefer graphical. It configures quite easily too. Getting the program to present for composing is not very well thought-out, IMHO. Unless I'm missing something, you've got to approach things via a menu to arrange to compose. They have toolbar icons for everything else, I wonder why there's none for composition? :?

jlowell

contrasutra · 2003-09-26 20:10:30

Mozilla Thunderbird of course, best Email client out there.

mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird

jlowell · 2003-09-26 20:49:34

contrasutra,

OK, I'll bite, what do you mean Mozilla Firebird is the the best e-mail client out there? Isn't it a stand-alone browser? I can find nothing on the interface to indicate it has mail client capablities. Am I missing something?

jlowell

sarah31 · 2003-09-26 21:46:43

thunderbird is the separate mail app.

contrasutra · 2003-09-26 22:12:23

Yup, confusing names.

They were gonna rename firebird to "Browser" and Thunderbird to "Mail", but they arent doing that until Moz1.6 now.

jlowell · 2003-09-27 01:25:54

contrasutra & sarah,

See what happens to you when you've passed your 63rd birthday, you read Thunderbird and Firebird as the same word. I know, I know, next it's falling down and not being able to get up and occasional bouts of incontinence. I'm ready for that.

Seriously, I had no idea that there was or even might be such a thing as Thunderbird. I removed Mozilla 1.4 and replaced it with Firebird and liked what I saw but I thought I'd have to locate an unrelated mail client. How long do you think it will it be before Thunderbird is released?

While I like the way Firebird looks, I notice that it can be a shade flaky at times. Is this me or is this a known attribute of Firebird?

jlowell

contrasutra · 2003-09-27 01:38:16

What do you mean? It is released.

Dont be fooled by the low release number, it was based off of Mozilla Mail 1.4, so its very stable.

0.3 is very nice though, try it out.

sarah31 · 2003-09-27 02:03:59

yes firebird is a bit flakier than moz but, to be honest, no browser is perfect.

pmv · 2003-09-30 11:14:34

How about Evolution? It's kind of Outlook clone.
It's quite bloated (got calendar and alarms and so on) but the version in arch works pretty quickly anyway.

rasat · 2003-09-30 17:05:03

jlowell wrote:

I'd appreciate having the recommendation of a stand-alone e-mail programs that would function well and look decent. Thoughts?

You are asking for a separate mail program, but if you are stil looking for a combined browser/mail package, try Opera. After shifting from Mozilla and also had tried few other browser/mail, I don't want to use any other programs. What made me to like Opera was the browser speed and it's excellent mail handling system showing inbox mails through different views (unread, received, mailing lists, attachments, labels, active contacts and spam). I am receiving lot of mails and this is first time when I can properly take care of them.

Currently, there is no AL package for Opera.
http://www.opera.com/
http://www.opera.com/graphics/docs/scre … sion=f2934
http://my.opera.com/customize/skins/

terrapin · 2003-09-30 20:12:38

rasat, did you create your own package for opera or did you use the installer?

jlowell · 2003-10-01 02:38:54

pvm,

First of all, welcome to the Arch Linux Forum, pvm!

You know, I just noticed that this thread was still active. I had pulled away from it to deal with some terminal questions and almost missed your suggestion that I try evolution. Well, truthfully, I had, in fact, considered evolution but its been my impression that it is dependent upon the gnome DE. I'm running xfwm4 here as a stand-alone WM with just enough added on to make it practical, a taskbar, for example. I reach a menu by right-clicking, there are no icons. Pretty much barebones, but its fast as the wind. And, if I may digress, that's one thing I'll say for sylpheed, its the fastest mail client I've ever used. So anyway, I don't think I can use evolution with this approach. I've given up on DEs.

Thanks for your suggestion.

jlowell

jlowell · 2003-10-01 03:00:01

rasat,

Thanks for pointing me to Opera, rasat. I've had no experience with it whatsoever but there's nothing quite like the recommendation of a satisfied user. The way things stand at the moment I'm using sylpheed. It's extemely quick but there are drawbacks: no http support as far as I can tell. That's a big one too in my mind. If I get the chance I thought I'd take a look at Thunderbird, but building a package for it at this point may require more of my time than I'm prepared to give it. God knows where I go near term after sylpheed.

Thanks for writing.

jlowell

rasat · 2003-10-01 04:03:25

terrapin wrote:

rasat, did you create your own package for opera or did you use the installer?

I used Opera's tarball installer. Easy to install (files are in binary format):

1. Download stable 7.11 tarball (choose option "tar.gz - QT Static ( 5Mb))
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=linux
Note: Version 7.20b7 is not stable

2. Uncompress and install (in root):
# tar zxvf opera-7.11-20030515.1-static-qt.i386.tar.gz
# cd opera-7.11-20030515.1-static-qt.i386
# ./install.sh
Say "yes" to all questions

3. Go to user mode and run in terminal (or make an icon):
# opera

PS.
If no root access, uncompress in user mode and run "opera".
If I see Opera becoming popular among AL users, I will make an AL packages.

jlowell wrote:

The way things stand at the moment I'm using sylpheed. It's extemely quick...
I thought I'd take a look at Thunderbird, but building a package for it at this point may require more of my time than I'm prepared to give it.

I did a test. Thunderbird install process is same as Opera, easy. But if you look for a quick program, its rather slow and bulky (40Mb). Beside this, its good.

rasat · 2003-10-06 05:52:43

Snapshot of my Opera (in Xfce4) with Mozilla / Netscape skin:
http://amlug.org/new-projects/snapshots/my-xfce4.png

terrapin · 2003-10-06 18:50:53

here's a PKGBUILD for the new 7.21 opera that was just released. In case anyone is interested.

pkgname=opera
pkgver=7.21
pkgrel=0.1
pkgdesc="Opera web browser."
url="www.opera.com"
source=(ftp://my.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/721/final/en/i386/static/$pkgname-$pkgver-20031006.1-static-qt.i386.tar.gz)

build() {
  cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver-20031006.1-static-qt.i386
  ./install.sh --prefix=$startdir/pkg/opt/opera
  sed -i "s|/var/tmp/opera/pkg/opt|/opt|g" $startdir/pkg/opt/opera/bin/opera
}

rasat · 2003-10-07 13:35:06

terrapin wrote:

here's a PKGBUILD for the new 7.21 opera that was just released. In case anyone is interested.
source=(ftp://my.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/721/final/en/i386/static/$pkgname-$pkgver-20031006.1-static-qt.i386.tar.gz)

Thanks for the code.
I tried the ftp address and Opera 7.21 is not yet released. Its still 7.20 beta.
ftp://my.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/

terrapin · 2003-10-07 13:42:03

hehe...I got lucky then They had 7.21final available for a couple of hours yesterday. Wonder why they removed it?

dp · 2003-10-07 14:11:21

what about kmail? besides that GnuPG do not work correctly, and there is sometimes a crash that remembers you how it was with windows it is a really nice email-client

vande198 · 2004-03-02 03:52:59

Sylpheed and Sylpheed-claws are nice, but bland in gtk1. Look in the TURs for a pkgbuild for sylpheed-gtk2, which is a gtk2 port of sylpheed. It looks nice, is really minimalistic, and has anti-alias fonts as well. It's personally my favorite.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-09-26 03:51:20

A Decent Mail Program

#2 2003-09-26 04:02:24

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#3 2003-09-26 04:11:11

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#4 2003-09-26 04:17:15

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#5 2003-09-26 04:57:34

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#6 2003-09-26 05:10:14

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#7 2003-09-26 20:10:30

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#8 2003-09-26 20:49:34

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#9 2003-09-26 21:46:43

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#10 2003-09-26 22:12:23

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#11 2003-09-27 01:25:54

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#12 2003-09-27 01:38:16

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#13 2003-09-27 02:03:59

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#14 2003-09-30 11:14:34

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#15 2003-09-30 17:05:03

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#16 2003-09-30 20:12:38

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#17 2003-10-01 02:38:54

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#18 2003-10-01 03:00:01

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#19 2003-10-01 04:03:25

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#20 2003-10-06 05:52:43

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#21 2003-10-06 18:50:53

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#22 2003-10-07 13:35:06

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#23 2003-10-07 13:42:03

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#24 2003-10-07 14:11:21

Re: A Decent Mail Program

#25 2004-03-02 03:52:59

Re: A Decent Mail Program

Board footer