Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On 02 Nov 1998 08:12:07 +1300, Carey Evans wrote:
>> 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.
>Just because you install XEmacs or Emacs doesn't mean you have to edit
>files with it - I use nvi for that most of the time. I'd install it
>just for Gnus. Oh yeah, :-).
I would not. I'm not in the habit of installing 8Mb+ for just an "MUA".
>> Want to know what is most commonly missing from Linux MUAs? Decent
>> ability to handle multiple accounts from *INSIDE* the application.
>OK. I haven't needed this. All my mail gets sorted into particular
>folders and all my replies come from the same address.
Most people don't and it appears that the authors of the MUAs are still
stuck on the idea that the user will want only one mail account because they
can either log in elsewhere or hack their way around it. That leaves the
people who do have multiple accounts with a lot more work than is needed.
>Does PMMail do threading? By not supporting the References header, it
>makes your posts the only ones I've noticed since Bruce Perens that
>don't get arranged properly for me. If it's not *sorting* posts by
>that header, it must make things a lot more difficult for you than
>they need to be.
No, it doesn't do threading. It is one of the most common requested
features, however. I don't use threading and have never missed it. I find
that sorting by "new/old" mail, then by subject, then by time (ascending)
keeps the conversation together quite nicely so long as everyone sets their
TZ.
>> 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?
>Gnus has a passable IMAP implmentation that I use to read mail off the
>Notes server at work. I suppose I should fix the most annoying bug.
Passable. Just having IMAP support is "passable". Having good IMAP
support is something that is almost universially lacking. I don't want
"passable" IMAP support since most "passable" IMAP support is on par with
POP. If I wanted POP I'd use POP, thank you.
>I don't quite see the irony, that a big company with thousands (tens
>of thousands?) of programmers can produce the slickest mail reader.
I do when you realize that Pine is by the very same people who make IMAP.
You'd think that the people who program both ends of it would be better able
to show off what it can do.
--
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: