Re: Mutt Next Generation
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:50:19PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 2005.01.26, in <20050126233821.GA9470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> * "Mads Laursen" <dossen+mutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > In short, an SMTP client is one of the things that, in my view,
> > > *clearly* don't belong into mutt.
>
> I fear that something is inevitable, as the SMTP world changes. SMTP
> AUTH is on the rise, like it or not -- and it's not just about spam
> prevention, so you can't even make a moral high ground argument about
> strategy.
Well it's certainly possible to configure most MTAs to authenticate to
a smarthost using SMTP auth, though it's definitely a pain in the ass,
so I don't think SMTP AUTH alone is a reason this functionality needs to
be built in to mutt.
I don't think I'd personally use the feature, but I do think this
would be a good feature to have in mutt if it could be implemented,
all "purism" aside. I'm not a programmer, but I guess I don't understand
quite how this could bloat mutt that much more than any of the other
features that have been added, even if some people don't like it on
ideological grounds. Heck... make it a compile-time option or something.
--
"Since when is skepticism un-American?
Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same..."
(Sleater-Kinney - "Combat Rock")