Pros of Mailspring

• Actively maintained and regularly updated
• Improved performance and stability
• Enhanced features like unified inbox and snoozing

Cons of Mailspring

• Requires Mailspring ID for some advanced features
• Less open-source friendly licensing (GPL v3)

Code Comparison

Mailspring uses a more modern JavaScript syntax and React components:

// Mailspring
import React from 'react';
import { RetinaImg } from 'mailspring-component-kit';

const MyComponent = () => (
  <RetinaImg name="icon-compose.png" mode={RetinaImg.Mode.ContentPreserve} />
);

Nylas Mail uses older JavaScript and React patterns:

// Nylas Mail
const React = require('react');
const {RetinaImg} = require('nylas-component-kit');

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <RetinaImg name="icon-compose.png" mode={RetinaImg.Mode.ContentPreserve} />;
  }
}

Summary

Mailspring, a fork of Nylas Mail, offers improved performance and features but with some limitations on open-source contributions. It uses more modern coding practices, making it potentially easier for developers to work with. However, the requirement of a Mailspring ID for certain features may be a drawback for some users. Nylas Mail, while no longer actively maintained, remains fully open-source but lacks recent updates and improvements.

Pros of Hydroxide

• Lightweight and focused on IMAP/SMTP proxy functionality
• Actively maintained with recent updates
• Written in Go, offering good performance and cross-platform compatibility

Cons of Hydroxide

• Limited features compared to full email clients
• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and use
• No graphical user interface, command-line only

Code Comparison

Hydroxide (Go):

func (b *Backend) Login(username, password string) (backends.User, error) {
    u := &user{backend: b, username: username}
    if err := u.login(password); err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    return u, nil
}

Nylas Mail (JavaScript):

async login(credentials) {
  try {
    const account = await IdentityStore.authenticateAccount(credentials);
    await AccountStore.addAccount(account);
    return account;
  } catch (error) {
    console.error('Login failed:', error);
    throw error;
  }
}

Summary

Hydroxide is a lightweight IMAP/SMTP proxy focused on providing a bridge between email providers and local email clients. It's more technical and requires command-line usage, but offers good performance. Nylas Mail, on the other hand, was a full-featured email client with a graphical interface, making it more user-friendly but also more resource-intensive. The code comparison shows Hydroxide's Go implementation for login functionality, while Nylas Mail used JavaScript with async/await for a similar purpose.

Pros of Tutanota

• Strong focus on privacy and end-to-end encryption
• Open-source and self-hostable
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of Tutanota

• Limited third-party integrations compared to Nylas Mail
• Less customizable user interface
• Smaller community and ecosystem

Code Comparison

Tutanota (TypeScript):

export function createMailAddress(mailAddress: string): MailAddress {
    const parts = mailAddress.split('@')
    return {
        address: mailAddress,
        name: '',
        contact: null,
        type: null
    }
}

Nylas Mail (JavaScript):

export function parseAddress(address) {
  const parsed = addressparser(address)[0];
  return {
    name: parsed.name,
    email: parsed.address,
  };
}

Both projects use different approaches for handling email addresses. Tutanota's implementation is more focused on creating a structured object with additional fields for privacy and encryption purposes, while Nylas Mail's approach is simpler and relies on an external library for parsing.

Tutanota's codebase emphasizes security and privacy features, whereas Nylas Mail focuses on extensibility and integration with various email providers. The programming languages differ (TypeScript vs. JavaScript), reflecting the projects' different priorities and development philosophies.

Pros of Roundcubemail

• Mature and stable project with a large user base
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for customization
• Self-hosted solution with full control over data

Cons of Roundcubemail

• Less modern user interface compared to Nylas Mail
• Primarily web-based, lacking native desktop integration

Code Comparison

Roundcubemail (PHP):

$rcmail = rcmail::get_instance();
$rcmail->output->set_env('mailbox', $mailbox);
$rcmail->output->send('mail');

Nylas Mail (JavaScript):

const mailbox = NylasEnv.getActiveMailbox();
NylasEnv.displayWindow().loadUrl(`mailbox/${mailbox.id}`);

Additional Notes

Roundcubemail is a web-based email client written in PHP, while Nylas Mail was a desktop email application built with Electron and JavaScript. Roundcubemail focuses on providing a self-hosted solution with extensive customization options, whereas Nylas Mail aimed to offer a more modern, native-like experience across platforms.

Roundcubemail continues to be actively maintained and developed, with regular updates and improvements. In contrast, the Nylas Mail project has been discontinued, which may impact its long-term viability for users seeking ongoing support and updates.