[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Mail Client

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:40:33AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>     No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is.  Mutt is an MUA but, to me, it
> is not a mail client.  A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate the
> required data without need of other programs.  A constant example I give,
> which is flawed as all are, is web browsing.  A web browser is, for the most
> part, an HTTP client.  We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking to
> one another directly.  We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the data
> to the HTTP user agent.  Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the basic
> point across.

maybe this is the snag you're caught on:

in the unix paradigm (which linux inhereted/cloned) the idea is to
make modules that serve a certain task, and string those modules
together to Do What You Want.

	which somecommand
	less `!!`

instead of having one monolithic gadget to show the source of a
system script (duplicating other code in the process), there are
various existing components you can string together to do the task.
if you find yourself doing the same string over and over, make a
shell alias or even your own shell script for it.

that's what fetchmail/exim/mutt do -- each plays a part in getting,
distributing and viewing the email.

since to use a mail client/mua, you hafta be logged in (i.e. have
an account, may as well yank all your remote accounts (fetchmail) and
plop them into your verious mail folders (exim/procmail) and read each
group in its own isolated environment (mutt) so you can wear the
appropriate hat for the appropriate subject at hand.

if you insist, you can smush a script together to start fetchmail
(which hooks into exim which hooks into procmail) and them launch
mutt to read your recently-yanked missives, but most of us like
cron to have fetchmail yank periodically, so we just mutt at
our leisure.

modularity, the clarion call of unix... we see it as A Good Thing.

Reply to: