Re: Mutt, libmutt, IMAP and the way forward

[Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>]

On 16 Feb, Jules Bean wrote:
> Given that we do make heavy use of libmutt, why do we have it included in
> our tree, rather than just linking against the upstream libmutt?  If we did
[snip]
> 
> Is the plan to migrate away from libmutt, perhaps?

  I would rather tend to remove it from the tree, if possible. I don't
  know how good is the mutt backend currently but the code included in
  balsa seems to be much less capable than, for instance c-client of
  pine.

  The disadvantage of seperating libmutt is that the independent changes
  in libmutt may break something in balsa. But I think it is worth to
  pay this price.

> Anyhow, I'm keen to bash some more powerful IMAP support in (listing
> folders, which is possible in mutt 1.1, and getting folder info [# unseen
> messages, etc] which isn't), but I'm not at all sure on the best way to do it.

  I would be happy to see more powerful IMAP support, too! But I can't
  tell you the way...

Pawel