On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:49:45 -0700, John Galt <email@example.com> wrote: [...] > Let's see: Pine Is Nearly (no-longer lately...) Elm, you say that mutt > actually derives from elm, yet they don't share code. Um, yeah, sure, > whatever. BTW from the LG article about mutt... AFAICT mutt does not share code with pine. [...] > Presumably, the Mutt team at least looked at Pine's implementation if for > no other reason than to see what to avoid. initial versions of mutt used the c-client library, that pine is also based on. but once michael elkins (at that time the sole author) realized that a number of mutt's goals  could not be achived with c-client, that part of mutt was rewritten. since c-client is gone, no code of pine that i know of is in mutt. all that must have happened in early 1996. now, features is a different discussion. when i proposed the variable keybinding feature to michael, i think i got the idea from pine. or at least i wanted to accomodate some of our pine l^Husers who would refuse mutt with its default keybindings. but the code is certainly michael's, based on my prototype.  most notably the PGP/MIME support. c-client and/or IMAP does evil things to those mime-parts. -- Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr | ignorami: n: The BOFH art of folding problem <firstname.lastname@example.org> | lusers into representational shapes.
Description: PGP signature