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

Re: Email programs that work.

Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org>:
> s. keeling wrote:
> > mutt "lacking"?!?  And you accuse Michelle of being a troll?!?  You're
> > an idiot.  HTH.  Twit.
>      Ah, yes, the rational response.  Sorry, Mutt does lack.
>      It lacks the ability to use the SMTP interface to send mail, being
>  restricted to the command line to get the job done.

It's an MUA.  Use SMTP.

>      It lacks filtering.

Like a washing machine sucks as a dishwasher.

>      It lacks a decent IMAP implementation.  Hint, IMAP is not a glorified
>   POP.

Don't care.

>      It lacks a decent multi-account implementation.  Having to configure
>  every
>  single item by hand without the concept of account inheritance is a night
>  mare.

You have a ridiculously complicated "system" for organizing your mail,
and it's mutt's fault for doing what it does well.  No.

>      You may not *agree* with Matej (or me) but that doesn't change
>  the fact that people have the opinion, rightly so, that Mutt is
>  lacking.

They're misinformed.  Start with the wrong premises and you'll reach
the wrong conclusion.  Mutt's an MUA.  Do one thing, and do it well.

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)    http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling          Linux Counter #80292
- -    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html    Please, don't Cc: me.
       Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html

Reply to: