On Wednesday, 14 April 2010 at 11:03, Will Fiveash wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:56:41AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: > > Is there a compelling reason not to change the configure script to > > enable support for these standard Internet protocols by default? > > What is the compelling reason to change the defaults? Currently if > someone wants support for those protocols in mutt they can enable them > via the configure script, yes? I think defaults are there for people who don't know or don't want to think about the effects of a choice. Knowledgeable users can say --disable-imap as easily as --enable-imap. The defaults are for new users, who should be able to build mutt with no options and not be surprised by the behavior of the resulting executable. In 1996, IMAP was a niche option. I'd argue that it isn't any more. It's probably partly for this reason that all distributions turn it on by default. So when ./configure; make; make install produces an executable that can't connect to an IMAP server, I think that surprises and puts off a lot of people. IMO, changing the defaults is in line with the principle of least surprise, now that networked mail has become so much more important. So turning this around, what's the compelling reason to keep the defaults?
Description: PGP signature