Nori Heikkinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > on Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:18:07PM +0100, marTin insinuated: > > > and I didn't like the single window nature of it (you can't compose > > > a message and read other mail at the same time). > > > > but you can happily spawn two hundred separate instances and point > > them wherever you like... it works just fine i find, it's lightweight, > > and it's fast... > > > > then again, i've never used anything else... > > as a devoted pine user for years, and eudora for more before that, i > concur that mutt rocks. and you *can* (as martin points out) compose > and read at the same time, all of which stay happily-synchonized with > '$' if need be.
That requires a whole lot more effort than I'd like, though. For example, suppose I'm replying to a thread, but some of the previous postings have been snipped and I want to check the parent of the thread. In order to do this in mutt, I'd have to open a new term and launch mutt, go to the correct mailbox, search through all the mail I've already read (can't sync with $ if I've already started composing), find the correct thread, and finally read the parent post. However, in an environment with multiple buffers (aka emacs), I can seamlessly switch to the index buffer and immediately read the parent of the thread, and then jump right back to the compose buffer. Besides, I hate managing windows. I don't want a bunch of terms running mutt just so I can see more than one email at a time. Just one window should do, thank you. I don't dislike mutt. It's ok, and it gets the job done. I just don't think it's the holy grail of email readers, as many seem to believe. I can't help but think it's overrated. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bignachos.com