Steve at fivetrees <steve@nospamtafivetrees.com> wrote:
> "Steve at fivetrees" <steve@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote in message
> news:iP2dnYkExOrgeTXbnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> "Steve at fivetrees" <steve@NOSPAMTAfivetrees.com> wrote in message
>> news:WLOdnf7t_L59fjXbRVnyhQA@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> It seems important to me to use an external mailbox (or mailboxes),
>>> since my home server may or may not be on and/or connected; and my
>>> domain server (also OpenBSD) does all the spamtrapping etc. Perhaps I
>>> should bite the bullet and point my MX records at my home server, and
>>> open up the ports etc etc...
>>>
>>> But is there a better way? What's "best practice" on this these days?
>>> ETRN?
>>
>> Afterthought: it would be *great* if I could deliver incoming mail to
>> Maildir (Dovecot) inboxes too...
>
> To answer my own post (for the archives), the getmail package is looking
> very promising. It's intended as a replacement for fetchmail, and
> delivers to maildirs very nicely. And deals with multidrop mailboxes
> explicitly.
>
> I was puzzled for a while by getmail delivering directly to maildirs -
> that's all very well for mail downloaded from an external mailbox, but
> what about mail sent to/from local users by sendmail? It finally dawned
> on me that I could use getmail to fix that too - by "downloading" from
> the local server using pop3 and thus delivering to the maildir.

I've been doing this for a while and it works great.
Since SMTP support is not yet present in mutt, I send replies by
doing an 'r', composing the message, and then sending it with a
':%!msmtp -t' command, after which I do a ':q!' to exit back to mutt.

> (Unless of course there's a "better" way, and I'm missing something,
> which is not just possible but likely...)
>
> Steve
> http://www.fivetrees.com
>
>

--
Be Happy. Don't Worry about the difference between lose and loose.