Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-20 Thread Dave Sill
"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >don't you have to learn all the saxophone-esque emacs keyboard >things to use it? It's got menus now so you can avoid 99% of the key bindings. -Dave

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-19 Thread David L. Nicol
Brett Randall wrote: > Under X? Try Gnus. It doesn't just work properly in strange > situations, it works properly in normal situations as well! don't you have to learn all the saxophone-esque emacs keyboard things to use it? -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PRO

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Brett Randall
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > > > Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Under X? Try Gnus. It doesn't just work properly in strange > > >situations, it works properly in normal situations as well! And it is > > >the MOST real M

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Under X? Try Gnus. It doesn't just work properly in strange > >situations, it works properly in normal situations as well! And it is > >the MOST real MUA you will ever find. It can be pretty...run it under > >X

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Dave Sill
Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Under X? Try Gnus. It doesn't just work properly in strange >situations, it works properly in normal situations as well! And it is >the MOST real MUA you will ever find. It can be pretty...run it under >XEmacs. I think we need a Gnus "deprogrammer". Soch

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Andy Bradford
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:04:14 PDT, Mike Glover wrote: >Okay, so does anybody know of a "real" MUA that is X-enhanced? > Sorry, but "pretty" is more of a concern to me than "works > properly in strange situations". I would prefer "not outright > broken" and "not vaporware", though. I persona

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Paul Farber
I can't believe that someone actually said this. You don't want *NIX then, boot up your Windows box and have at it. Paul Farber Farber Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Mike Glover wrote: >Okay, so does anybody know of a "real" MUA that is

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Peter van Dijk
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:04:14PM -0700, Mike Glover wrote: >Okay, so does anybody know of a "real" MUA that is X-enhanced? > Sorry, but "pretty" is more of a concern to me than "works > properly in strange situations". I would prefer "not outright > broken" and "not vaporware", though. ht

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-11 Thread Robin S. Socha
* Mike Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001011 01:06]: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Adam McKenna wrote: > > Not using microshaft brokenware. Use a real MUA, for example, Mutt, > > which you tell what mailing lists you subscribe to, and then use the > > List-Reply-To (L) when replying. It also generates Ma

Re: OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-10 Thread Brett Randall
Mike Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Okay, so does anybody know of a "real" MUA that is X-enhanced? > Sorry, but "pretty" is more of a concern to me than "works > properly in strange situations". I would prefer "not outright > broken" and "not vaporware", though. > > -mike > Under X?

OT: a "real" MUA for X? (was qmail list reply-to)

2000-10-10 Thread Mike Glover
Okay, so does anybody know of a "real" MUA that is X-enhanced? Sorry, but "pretty" is more of a concern to me than "works properly in strange situations". I would prefer "not outright broken" and "not vaporware", though. -mike On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Adam McKenna wrote: > Not using microshaft