[OT] Re: What am I missing without mutt?
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>:
>
> On 02/05/08 22:27, s. keeling wrote:
> > Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com>:
> >> On 05/02/2008, BartlebyScrivener <bscrivener42@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 4, 5:20 pm, "Steve Lamb" <g...@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > It all depends on the work habits of the individual user.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you can say that about anything, right? The OP asked what
> >>> he was missing, so he's soliciting the opinions of people with
> >>> different work habits.
> >> Exactly. I asked because I'm certain that there are those with
> >> more experience and more efficient workflows than myself. So I
> >> ask.
> >
> > I come from the dark ages. For me, it's important that the tools
> > I use write files that anything can deal with, not just the app
> > which created them. Mutt handles any standard form of mail box
> > format, including on_some_other_server(don't much care how),
> > aka. imap.
> >
> > The guis, in my experience, save in their own format (If you let
> > them?
>
> That's just not true.
>
> Well, ok, it's *partially* true: Outlook stores mail in a
> But Netscape and it's descendants all use mbox as the native format,
As you're well aware :-), Lookout! doesn't count here.
I was thinking tbird. I recently tried to help a noob slurp in his
old tbird mails. Are you saying that data file was mbox?!? It looked
binary to me.
> PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals
ACK!
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
Reply to: