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: