Re: Is there a stable mail client for linux?
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.]
In article <2KDBB-4pN-1@gated-at.bofh.it>, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:02:52AM -0400, Ed Sutherland wrote:
>> Is there a secure, solid and stable e-mail client built for linux?
>
> No. Every mail client in existence is utter crap, including mutt and
> gnus. The best you can hope for is something that is barely tolerable,
> and I'm still searching for it...
I've been using mailx since 1985. I've tried mutt, mh, Pine,
Elm, Netscape, Kmail, Xfmail, Evolution, Balsa, and more.
I keep returning to mailx.
Granted, for mailx to achieve the usability
of a "modern" MUA you need to run it in a window system,
and learn to use its "v" command, and set your environment so
"v" brings up *your* favorite editor, and you need a shell
in another window where you can run metamail or munpack
on the temporary file that "v" creates.
And it's nice to have a desktop accessory like Klipper to
ask you what you want done with the URL you just selected.
You'll need external programs like fetchmail and procmail
to filter and deliver locally, and maybe muttprint to pretty-print
that which needs it.
Now and then you might have to bust up a really big
mailbox file with formail -s dd of=tmp/$FILENO.
But we *have* all that stuff.
Gripes: it's been twenty friggin years and the "Mail Reference
Manual" mentioned in the manpage still isn't distributed with
the program. Vi (Elvis and then Vim) became mouse-aware years
ago but mailx still isn't. And it's so inconvenient to type
1G!Ggpg --clearsign<enter>passphrase<enter><control-L>
that I only sign the most important messages.
And I'd really like more control over my "From:" line.
Give mailx another look. Millions of little tools that each
do one thing really well beats a monolithic "user friendly"
blob every time.
Cameron
Reply to: