Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On 01 Nov 1998 11:30:25 +0100, Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
>| Too bad there isn't a single decent MUA for Linux.
>And you have, no doubt, tried every single one.
No, not every single one.
Looking through Hamm's packages...
exmh, mutt, nmh, tkmail, tkrat
Also:
Balsa, KDE's mail application, pine, elm, Mozilla
That does not include quite a few that I downloaded in my Slackware days
off of various FTP sites and web pages. All? No. I never claimed that.
All the major ones? Almost. The only one not present is GNUS which isn't an
MUA, it is a lisp script for a bloated editor which I refuse to install on my
machine.
Shall we include Windows MUAs as well? Off the top of my head:
Eudora Light/Pro (1.x-4.x), Exchange, Outlook(97/98/Express), PMMail98,
Pegasus, The Bat, Simeon, Mozilla, Teamware Embla, and a slew of other lesser
ones whose names elude me at the moment.
Want to know what is most commonly missing from Linux MUAs? Decent
ability to handle multiple accounts from *INSIDE* the application. Want
something else that Linux MUAs almost universially lack? Decent support for
multiple file folders and the ability to easily traverse them as well as know
which ones have new mail and which ones don't.
Lack of decent IMAP support is an all around problem for all MUAs with,
get this, Outlook Express and Outlook98 being the best IMAP I've found, even
beating out Pine. Ironic, don't you think?
Linux MUAs are pathetic by comparison. Limiting, cumbersome, in many
cases near useless and in others barely functional.
Considering I sift through 6-700 messages a day across my five accounts
and have tried over 30 MUAs (I named 16-17 off the top of my head, if I had
lists I could name all 30) across 3 operating systems I think that more than
qualifies for your little "have you tried them all" quip which is really a
pathetic attempt at a logic nitpicking war.
At best, you've caught me in a generalization.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: