Re: What am I missing without mutt?
On 05/02/2008, BartlebyScrivener <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 4:20 pm, "Dotan Cohen" <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure, for plain text OOo and Word are terrible tools. They are not
> > meant for that purpose. However, when you need markup such as that for
> > print documents, a word processor is a necessity.
> A necessity? Only if you don't know LaTeX.
That's true. Though I've never been into kinky.
> But I think you see my point. For a text and keyboard person, mutt is
> much more efficient. To me using Thunderbird to send email is like
> trying to manage text with a word processor.
> To pick up on your analogy. Mutt is made for the purpose of managing
> and sending plain text emails. If that's what you want to do, then
> it's much more efficient and programmable than a gui email program
> like Thunderbird.
I see what you are saying. Tell me, in mutt can I have several (5-6)
compose messages open and switch between them and the main window that
I'm copying / pasting from? Also, will mutt remember that when I write
to xyz@hisServer.com I need the From address to be xyz@myServer.com,
and when I write to abc@anotherServer.com I need the From address to
be abc@myServer.com? Those two features are necessary to my workwflow,
and so far as I understand only GUI mail clients perform the former,
while only Thunderbird (with an extension) can perform the latter.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?