Re: What am I missing without mutt?
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 05/02/2008, BartlebyScrivener <bscrivener42@gmail.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?
Open 5, 6 different mutts?
(Or alternatively, postpone a message and shift to another).
> 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.
Yes, mutt can.
And actually both points have already been raised in the course of the
discussion. As well as the fact that you don't really get along with
text-based clients.
So I guess things begin to repeat themselves :-)
--
Tzafrir Cohen | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend
Reply to: