On 08/26/2006 11:10 AM, s. keeling wrote:
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.
I am using SMTP; my MUA supports 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.
There's nothing ridiculous or ridiculously complicated about supporting multiple e-mail accounts. All of the _advanced_ :-P MUAs support them (Seamonkey, Thunderbird, Kmail, Balsa, Evolution, Outlook and Outlook Express [shudder]).
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.
I think they're properly informed. It seems that Mutt is last decade's e-mail technology. Those of you who want to do e-mail 1996 style, use Mutt.
It's kinda like having a web-browser that doesn't do cookies or embedded video or PNG or javascript or flash or CSS or SSL.
Cheers :-P