On 2005-01-27 23:16:52 +0000, Paul Walker wrote:
> Return-Path: <owner-mutt-dev-M324@xxxxxxxx>
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0
> tests=
> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:16:52 +0000
> From: Paul Walker <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Mutt Next Generation
> Message-ID: <20050127231652.GJ18161@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> In-Reply-To: <20050127033434.GD11114@xxxxxxxxxx>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:34:34PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> > I personally never use Usenet, but to me, NNTP and e-mail seem like
> > (from the perspective of the user) exactly the same thing, so I see no
>
> They have the same message format, but very different reading requirements.
I disagree with that. Mailinglists have very similar reading
requirements as usenet news. So you could of course argue that I should
pipe all mailinglists into INN and use slrn to read them.
In fact I'm starting to think that the usenet newsgroup/article model is
better suited to reading my personal and work-related mail than the IMAP
folder model. (Because of cross-posts and lookups by message-id).
So I might want to throw all my mail on an nntp server, but I don't want
to use slrn to read my mail. I like mutt a lot better.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | If the code is old but the problem is new
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR / LUGA | then the code probably isn't the problem.
| | | hjp@xxxxxxxxx |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Tim Bunce on dbi-users, 2004-11-05
Attachment:
pgprAIXjm8dBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature