On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:04:34PM -0400, cga2000 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote: > > Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid > > waste of work. If the maintainers don't want to maintain the code, > > then they probably should stop being maintainers. > > Please be more specific. What are those "features that lots of > people want" and that are absent from mutt? I have used mutt for > about three years and I never once had the feeling that anything was > missing. If you actually require an answer to this, then you apparently have not been reading this thread, and have simply chosen just to pick out one particular comment that you can respond to with what you think is some clever, quipy remark that in actuality is neither valuable to the discussion, nor sensible in any regard. I suggest you re-read the thread, and in particular the original poster's messages, and also the part where I wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:39:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > And don't forget that just because YOU don't find any value in a > feature, that doesn't mean it's not a feature that common users > want... The folks who both use mutt and are likely to hang out on a mailing list are almost by definition not common mail users. But lots of people who use Mutt want the power it offers them to process a wide variety of mail in interesting ways, but don't want to hack their mailer; and they shouldn't have to, if the feature they want is commonly implemented in other mailers. Being able to say, "Mutt can do that, if you write a script to do it, and write a macro to invoke the script and..." does not constitute support for a feature in Mutt. Mutt should implement features that are commonly implemented in other mailers so that users of Mutt can interoperate with people who don't use Mutt, which is by far the majority of mail users. Mutt's claim is that it sucks less than all other mailers, which was once true; but IMO with each new feature that other mailers implement that Mutt does not, this becomes less and less the case, and I'm not sure if that is still true anymore. It certainly does still offer some powerful mail-processing features that most other mailers don't offer; but some mailers do offer a lot of them now... To be honest I think the ONLY reason I still use mutt is because I do most of my personal mail reading remotely, and Mutt still DOES suck less than the rest of TEXT-BASED mailers... But I wonder if it isn't only a matter of time before even that isn't true anymore. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpEITiOOy7Mk.pgp
Description: PGP signature