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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market
with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976
We are still waiting ....
--
Phoebe-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
