On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:18:49AM -0500, Tom Diehl wrote: > > Seriously though, have you found a good replacment for pine? > > If so what is it? > > In all seriousness: in what way is mutt _not_ a good replacement for pine? > Sure, it's got configurationitis, but these days, aren't people who are > looking for an e-mail client that Just Works (a la Havoc) going to go for an > X11-based option? Or webmail, even. I did not say Mutt or for that matter anything else was not a good replacment for pine. Last time I looked at mutt (2 or 3 years ago) it's configuration was a nightmare for me. I could not easially find the features I was used to in pine. I guess I was not really into switching. I will say that I have used mutt to automate the sending of mail attachments in some scripts I have written and it performed well. Oh and as to your statment above about going for an X-11 based solution I am one of those people who has yet to find a really usable X-11 email client. That does not mean it does not exist just I have yet to find it, not that I have looked very hard. At this point I am just exploring options. I could just stay with pine as long as UW keeps supporting it. I am not sure what I will do yet. -- .............Tom "Nothing would please me more than being able to tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976 We are still waiting .... -- Phoebe-list mailing list Phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
[Home] [Kernel List] [Red Hat Install] [Red Hat Watch List] [DVD Store] [Red Hat Development] [Gimp] [Yosemite News]