Re: Threading Mail
Nori Heikkinen <nori@sccs.swarthmore.edu> writes:
> on Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:18:07PM +0100, marTin insinuated:
> > > and I didn't like the single window nature of it (you can't compose
> > > a message and read other mail at the same time).
> >
> > but you can happily spawn two hundred separate instances and point
> > them wherever you like... it works just fine i find, it's lightweight,
> > and it's fast...
> >
> > then again, i've never used anything else...
>
> as a devoted pine user for years, and eudora for more before that, i
> concur that mutt rocks. and you *can* (as martin points out) compose
> and read at the same time, all of which stay happily-synchonized with
> '$' if need be.
That requires a whole lot more effort than I'd like, though. For
example, suppose I'm replying to a thread, but some of the previous
postings have been snipped and I want to check the parent of the
thread. In order to do this in mutt, I'd have to open a new term and
launch mutt, go to the correct mailbox, search through all the mail I've
already read (can't sync with $ if I've already started composing), find
the correct thread, and finally read the parent post.
However, in an environment with multiple buffers (aka emacs), I can
seamlessly switch to the index buffer and immediately read the parent of
the thread, and then jump right back to the compose buffer.
Besides, I hate managing windows. I don't want a bunch of terms running
mutt just so I can see more than one email at a time. Just one window
should do, thank you.
I don't dislike mutt. It's ok, and it gets the job done. I just don't
think it's the holy grail of email readers, as many seem to believe. I
can't help but think it's overrated.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
BigNachos@jabber.org
http://bignachos.com
Reply to: