Re: Claws versus Evolution for email.
On 04/04/2011 03:53 PM, Piscium wrote:
On 4 April 2011 20:44, Linuxguy123 <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is why I ask questions that have seemingly simple answers on this
> board. So much knowledge and experience and everyone does things a bit
> differently.
I had never heard of Claws before. I am currently using Thunderbird.
How does Claws compare with it?
Thunderbird - email for the graphically flared
Claws - email for the textually preferred ..
yeh not the best rhyme ... tho if you say "prefair" with a Boston
accent it may fly ... :-)
(1) Structured email.
If you receive (or send) structured email -
bullet lists, tables, highlights etc ... you may prefer
something which supports structure (like thunderbird, evolution).
If you seldom receive or send structured content then you
may not need html support (like on this mailing list).
(2) encryption
Both support gpg -
TB additionally supports s/mime certs (cannot find it in claws -
anywone know for sure - tho I imagine it is there?)
If you're communicating with any .mil (or someone who uses this
encryption) you may need s/mime cert support.
I'm sure there are plenty of other diffs ... both are fast (TB needs
gloda disabled as that is definitely poop) ...
Finally, I'd always advise being essentially client indifferent - so
never tie to a particular client's local storage formats for example.
Always leave all mail on an imap server - make a local dovecot if you
need to ... that way you can switch clients (and back) at almost no cost.
gene/