Re: Why are we still using trn?
From: DMckeon@swcp.com (Denis McKeon)
> I switched from readnews to rn (a 1985 pre-trn rn), then to trn,
> (Trn version: 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000)) which does 95-98% of what I want,
> What David said. Heck, for mail I'm still using:
> MuSH (Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98))
Giggle - I'm using Trn version: 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001).
and Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98)
myself.
I use trn because it does what I want it to - message selection files (aka
KILL files) with regular expressions that I can use to select messages that
I do or do not want to see, ascii only interface (so I can use it via
telnet sessions), relatively fast (except for some of my stupider
kill files...), only crashes once every 6 months or so...
--
Tcl - The glue of a new generation. <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/ >
Larry W. Virden <mailto:lvirden@cas.org> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
-><-
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
[Trn Home]
[Site Home]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[Hot Springs]
[Epson Inkjet]
[Mhonarc]
[Nntpcache]