On 3/27/07, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:07:48PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Not in my mutt >:)
<...> but Mutt is defaulting that particular attachment to iso-8859-1 here
I am sorry, I couldn't understand the Mutt part. Does that mean you've been using Mutt? :-)
How good is it?
Any comments on the differences (productivity, mail filtering, etc) from the graphical mail clients? Why do you use it?
Thanks Leonardo
Leonardo:
This is probably a little off-topic, but I use mutt to send attachments through email from a script. ( It's good for automatically generated files such as the results of a system backup, etc. )
I also have a nifty little utility that polls a certain network directory and picks up text files that are a certain format and sends them through email (with an optional attachment) -- this allows me to generate log files on a "legacy server" that will automatically be emailed, without worrying about figuring out how to automatically email something in Windows.
(I'd much rather implement something in Linux than Windows, given a choice.)
Leonardo Pinheiro wrote:
On 3/27/07, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:07:48PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Not in my mutt >:)
<...> but Mutt is defaulting that particular attachment to iso-8859-1 here
I am sorry, I couldn't understand the Mutt part. Does that mean you've been using Mutt? :-)
How good is it?
Any comments on the differences (productivity, mail filtering, etc) from the graphical mail clients? Why do you use it?
Thanks Leonardo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:03:22PM -0300, Leonardo Pinheiro wrote:
On 3/27/07, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:07:48PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Not in my mutt >:)
<...> but Mutt is defaulting that particular attachment to iso-8859-1 here
I am sorry, I couldn't understand the Mutt part. Does that mean you've been using Mutt? :-)
How good is it?
Any comments on the differences (productivity, mail filtering, etc) from the graphical mail clients? Why do you use it?
Well, you have lots of questions. Answering all in once:
1- 10 fingers are faster than 2 (keyboard versus mouse) 2- If you know regular expressions, you can do some pretty nice stuff with mutt 3- I never found an e-mail client that would give me 1 tenth of the productivity I have with mutt 4- My .muttrc file is VERY customized, result of at least 5 years. I also have some small patches I created for Mutt itself I use here. And I DON'T use Mutt 1.4. Mutt 1.5 is MUCH better. My Mutt patches are mostly regarding pgp/gnupg support. 5- My Mutt window is 80x54. Works great. 6- I use the internal pages (for displaying) and VIM for editing 7- Some trick with .mailcap are nice for viewing HTML messages, as well as vcards and other stuff. Here is a free sample:
text/html;w3m -O utf-8 -I %{charset} -dump %s;copiousoutput;nametemplate=%s.html
I use a fetchmail + procmail + mutt combo here, in case you are wondering. My procmail rules are (again) very customized. I actually have started mixing "screen" to this combo lately, which is great when I want to access my mail remotely.
Lets face it, Mutt default configuration sucks. It takes some time and some learning to reach peak productivity. But it is very worth it.
And last, regarding Mutt (by its author): "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.", circa 1995
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Leonardo Pinheiro wrote:
I am sorry, I couldn't understand the Mutt part. Does that mean you've been using Mutt? :-)
How good is it?
Very. But you want to use the development version (1.5.14 at the moment).
Any comments on the differences (productivity, mail filtering, etc) from the graphical mail clients? Why do you use it?
Because it is the most versatile and configurable mail client which is out there. I don't know of any other mail client coming close to the features mutt has. Though it still stinks in some parts. As Michael Elkins said 12 years ago:
``All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.'' -me, circa 1995
And that is just true. Still.
But they really could release 1.6.x, as 1.4.x is just too old and misses many imap features (and header caching) which 1.5.x already has.
Oh, before someone hits me: Yes, Gnus is the one mail client which can do all the stuff mutt can't. But it needs Emacs as its operating system.
Ralph
-
J -
Leonardo Pinheiro -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rodrigo Barbosa