Re: Email programs that work.
Steve Lamb <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> s. keeling wrote:
> > mutt "lacking"?!? And you accuse Michelle of being a troll?!? You're
> > an idiot. HTH. Twit.
> Ah, yes, the rational response. Sorry, Mutt does lack.
> It lacks the ability to use the SMTP interface to send mail, being
> restricted to the command line to get the job done.
It's an MUA. Use SMTP.
> It lacks filtering.
Like a washing machine sucks as a dishwasher.
> It lacks a decent IMAP implementation. Hint, IMAP is not a glorified
> It lacks a decent multi-account implementation. Having to configure
> single item by hand without the concept of account inheritance is a night
You have a ridiculously complicated "system" for organizing your mail,
and it's mutt's fault for doing what it does well. No.
> You may not *agree* with Matej (or me) but that doesn't change
> the fact that people have the opinion, rightly so, that Mutt is
They're misinformed. Start with the wrong premises and you'll reach
the wrong conclusion. Mutt's an MUA. Do one thing, and do it well.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.