Re: Has anyone ever thought of getting the reply-to changed?
On February 07, 2004 10:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:24:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Paul Johnson wrote:
> > >So if TB is supposedly better than Lookout, how does it differ?
> > > So far, TB sounds identical to Outlook.
> >
> > Uhm, let's see. Open Source, Bayesian filtering built in, decent
> > plugin support, awesome IMAP support, doesn't compose HTML mail by
> > default, I've never seen TB try to define a charset in the
> > Subject, adheres to far more standards. Oh, and is a few years
> > younger than Lookout!
>
> OK, then why does TB still have more in common than OE than a real
> mail client?
>
I'd add a few things to that list; it uses mbox (but not maildir since
it doesn't work in Windows) and it defaults to bottom replying
(although that can be changed by the user). It also doesn't propagate
viruses as easily (if every Outlook user was using TB/Moz instead, we
wouldn't have nearly the same problem with viruses clogging up mail
servers and inboxes). The included Bayesian spam filter is probably the
easiest to use for average users of any mail client in existence (that
was what kept me with Mozilla/TB until I figured out how to invoke
bogofilter from kmail; spam filtering with kmail is still too difficult
for the average user). I wouldn't call TB a real mail client yet but
it's also not akin to Outlook. I'd say it's about 3/4 of the way
towards being a real mail client and if it were to get (1) list-reply
and (2) more versatile filters (ability to pipe through or execute
external commands and to rewrite headers for example) then it would
pretty well be a real mail client.
--
David P James
Ottawa, Ontario
http://members.rogers.com/dpjames/
There is no art which one government sooner learns of another
than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
--
David P James
Ottawa, Ontario
http://members.rogers.com/dpjames/
There is no art which one government sooner learns of another
than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Reply to: