Re: Mail & PGP
larry@alaska.net (Adam Shand) wrote:
>mutt's pgp/gpg integration is second to none (it's *really* nice) but it
>only uses pgp/mime which a lot of clients don't support yet
>(pine/netscape). i also personally hate it's lack of editor
>integration. if it wasn't for that i'd be using mutt now (in fact i have
>tried to swap several times but the the features i lose from pine drive me
>nuts and i always end up reverting).
("Personally" noted, but for the benefit of other readers:)
I actually find that, for a committed vim user like me, and indeed
probably for anyone who doesn't like pico, mutt's editor integration is
actually much *better* than pine's. Any time I tried to get pine to use
vi as its editor I found that I either lost features or had to run
everything through pico anyway, simply because the fact that pine's
designed with its own editor means that it's not designed for hooking
cleanly into other editors. Maybe I wasn't setting it up correctly, I
don't know, but it never seemed worth the hassle to me.
mutt, on the other hand, is designed knowing that it will be invoking an
external program as its editor, and provides you with that little
post-editing composition screen that does all the message composition
tasks not directly related to actually editing the text. To my mind this
logical separation makes far more sense anyway, and I can always hit 'e'
to go back and edit the article again. It also puts all editors on an
equal footing.
None of this really applies if you like pico, of course, but I thought
I'd throw in my take on the perennial mailer debate. :)
--
Colin Watson [cjw44@cam.ac.uk]
Reply to: