=- Derek Martin wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 17:39:49 -0400 -= > If a function is e-mail related, and commonly supported by other > mailers, then it seems to me Mutt should have built-in support for > it too. Mutt is a Mail USER Agent (not a mail DEVELOPER agent), > and it should interoperate with other mailers, and should do > everything that users commonly want to do with mail without a lot > of fuss.
Including spam management, sorting/ filtering, mime handling, ...? News is so similar to mail, and all the other mailers do that, too, why not mutt? It's not mail-related enough for you? But it's sooo close... You mistake configurability and the need to do so with the users having to be somehow special. If a little rtfm disqualifies users for mutt ... that's sad, but they shouldn't use mutt then, and mutt shouldn't change to become a product for a mindless mass, that's what OL is for. ;) > The only things that should require fuss are things that are not > commonly wanted by common mail users. And don't forget that just > because YOU don't find any value in a feature, that doesn't mean > it's not a feature that common users want... "Common" here, "value" there, no proof anywhere. > {...} > especially if you have to deploy 1000 Unix workstations that don't > come with any of the helper programs you need to make your > application work in your environment (and most especially if they > need different configurations, preventing one from easily > creating, say, a tarball with all the required software). The same can happen with hardcode: it sucks when you have no ssl, curses or other libs installed. Want that all built-in? -- © 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.