Re: How to send a return receipt
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:33:46AM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
> 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.
As a perfectly content user of mutt I felt it my best interest to seize
upon this opportunity to state that mutt does precisely what I want and
does it the way I want.
As I wrote earlier, I have absolutely no idea what features you are
missing.
Every time I need to do something, much to my delight, it is there for
me .. implemented in the smartest and most natural possible way.
This humble subscriber to the list is simply saying he does not want
mutt to become yet another Microsoft Outlook clone.
I must add that I agree with everything Charles and Rado posted to this
thread as to why adding new so-called "features" to mutt is not a
decision lightly to be taken and why I feel such enhancements will turn
out not be such a wonderful idea after all.
Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the desire to argue further.
Thanks,
cga