Re: Linux Mail Client
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:29:32AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> There area great many things that people suggest as "features" or "why
> doesn't it work this way", which have been tried, and either don't work,
> produce security holes, or introduce (generally unnecessary) complexity
> into the system.
I agree. I personally feel that a mail client should not have an editor,
a spell checker and a contact list in it like most of the Windows clients do.
Trust me, I personally don't like how either side handles the whole mail
issue. I feel that Windows incorporates too much and isn't powerful enough on
the core features where Unix doesn't incorporate enough and focuses too much
on the power of the minute details.
> This is a mature system. Peturbe it gently.
Right. As you said, it is sitting on 30 years of unix experience.
However, the world has evolved around unix. The unix model of mail,
MTA/MUA/MDA was designed in a time when people weren't using single machines
for mail. For that it works well. However, when the world shifted from
multiple people on a single box to a single person on a single box one does
have to question the mature system designed to handle something completely
different.
> One of my sayings in regards another software product which features a
> "users ballot" is "beware of what others ask for, you may get it".
Again, I agree. That is why I am careful about what I propose and try to
explain why those suggestions are logical in the situation given. It is also
why I am careful to try to state that the currrent system does work in other
situations, most often situations they were designed for.
> Greeting suggestions with skepticism is IMO very healthy.
Yes, skepticism is healthy. Dismissal is not. I haven't seen a whole lot
of skepticism and entirely too much dismissal.
> the "I want something like this" stage, and emerge as...Perl, exim,
> mutt, fetchmail, vim, wget, screen, VNC.... to name a few tools I find
> myself thankful for daily.
PMMail, The Bat! are on mine for reasons given.
> OTHOH, violent negativism is bad. IMO the list has been more than
> tolerant of your wants, Steve, but my own patience is waning.
Then it is waning for the people who are constantly negative and
dismissing this very simple idea and concept out of hand because they have
apparently not seen it in action, haven't felt a need to have it in action,
and feel that their system is suitable in all situations when to a great many
people it clearly is not.
Being robust is a good thing. The MTA/MDA/MUA model is very robust.
However, sometimes excessive robustness isn't needed. It is in those
situations where the mail client as I just described to John is better suited
for the task at hand than the entire MTA/MDA/MUA model.
To put an analogy to that there is nothing on the roads that can beat the
hauling capacity of a truck. Not a pickup, a true "18-wheeler" (even though
some have more or less than 18) tractor/trailer, long-haul truck. It can move
20 tons of stuff in a ~10' x ~8' x ~47' container (well, one of the sizes are
about that). However, I don't think there is a person here who would
recommend that every family own, maintain and operate sensibly a long-haul
truck to run down to the market once a week for groceries when even a sports
car with a truck that can hold 8 standard sized paper grocery bags will get
the job done.
However, that is what I see time and time again from the unix community on
the issue of mail. "Oh, you want to transport mail (groceries)? Well, you
need to get fetchmail, exim, sometimes procmail and mutt, doo all of this and,
there, it works (tractor/trailer)." The model is more than most people need.
That is why I say some of the functions of the MDA and MTA, along with the
functions of the MUA, become a mail client (see message to John for details).
No, it doesn't do everything the full model does, but it doesn't /have/ to and
the people should have to own, maintain and operate sensibly the full model
when it isn't needed.
Why other cannot accept that problem is beyond me.
--
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: