=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:48:24 +0200 -=
> After all its not too hard to achieve all this, but its wasted
> effort, as with a lot of care you cannot guarantee that this will
> run in a few days, weeks or months because admin could decide to
> remove just one of the tools you need to achieve what you need.
> Remember: Not every user of mutt is the admin of the machine.
Yes, but I think you're too paranoid or haven't noticed the required
tools for such a solution: they are _basic_ unix tools like "ls", which
no sane admin would consider removing.
If your admin is not sane, then you have bigger problems than this.
> Usually one automates rather complex processes, while we are
> talking about a pretty simple function ...
Your assumption is wrong: automation is not a matter of size but of
repetition. Especially simple stuff can be quickly implemented
easily without having to hardcode.
> ... if integrated into mutt, but a rather complex if you need to
> establish the functionality standalone.
It appears complex to you, but in fact it _is_ simple.
> It is like removing 'ls' from a shell and saying: You could write
> your own ls, because thats possible and a shell really should not
> implement a ls command on its own.
Nobody is removing anything, actually you're being given something
that didn't exist before: "ls2".
> > it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of little-used "features"
> > to cause
>
> You keep claiming that it is "little-used" but thats just not
> true. It is wideley supported, wideley used and commonly expected.
> So all your arguments that are based on this wrong premises
> actually are _wrong_.
Little used, wildly used, no side can prove its point by numbers.
We only have gut feelings about our personal experience. So this
can't ever be a valid argument, for either side.
> > As a related example, I'm still disappointed SMTP support got
> > added.
>
> Well, feel free to not compile it with SMTP support, then. Thats
> far easier then maintaining a patch outside of upstream for years.
No patching would ever be needed if you accepted that SMTP
functionality doesn't belong to mutt and is _safely_ handled by
whatever you specify in $sendmail.
> YOU are disappointed about it, while I am quiet happy about this,
> because I don't like the idea to configure a bloated MTA on every
> system (including laptops and workstations) for no added benefit.
It has no benefit for _you_! :)
Anyway, you don't need to use "bloated" MTAs, you can use
http://WIKI.mutt.org/?LightSMTPagents
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
