Re: How to send a return receipt
=- Derek Martin wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 17:39:49 -0400 -=
> If a function is e-mail related, and commonly supported by other
> mailers, then it seems to me Mutt should have built-in support for
> it too. Mutt is a Mail USER Agent (not a mail DEVELOPER agent),
> and it should interoperate with other mailers, and should do
> everything that users commonly want to do with mail without a lot
> of fuss.
Including spam management, sorting/ filtering, mime handling, ...?
News is so similar to mail, and all the other mailers do that, too,
why not mutt? It's not mail-related enough for you? But it's sooo
close...
You mistake configurability and the need to do so with the users
having to be somehow special. If a little rtfm disqualifies users
for mutt ... that's sad, but they shouldn't use mutt then, and mutt
shouldn't change to become a product for a mindless mass, that's
what OL is for. ;)
> The only things that should require fuss are things that are not
> commonly wanted by common mail users. 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...
"Common" here, "value" there, no proof anywhere.
> {...}
> especially if you have to deploy 1000 Unix workstations that don't
> come with any of the helper programs you need to make your
> application work in your environment (and most especially if they
> need different configurations, preventing one from easily
> creating, say, a tarball with all the required software).
The same can happen with hardcode: it sucks when you have no ssl,
curses or other libs installed. Want that all built-in?
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.