On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:50:33PM -0400, cga2000 wrote: > 1. I have no problem with variable name changes as long as a reliable > conversion script is provided together with the new release. > > 2. After one month doing my mail in mutt with its "stagnant".. "user > unfriendly".. etc. interface I estimate my increase in productivity to > over 300%.. How do I know.. well, I spend about one-third of the time > doing mail as compared to when I used mozilla-mail.. Not to mention that > I can do *everything* basic with one keystroke and use vim as my > editor.. I totally agree with this point; which is why I petition so hard for mutt to continue improving, instead of wandering off and using one of those other mailers. Mutt makes me more productive. But still, there are A LOT of ways mutt could still suck less. > 3. I don't support the idea of a configuration tool or a GUI version of > mutt. WHY? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?!?!?!? What should it matter to you if mutt has those features, if you need not use them? How can it possibly bother you? People often say this, but no one has (as far as I can see) ever made a single plausible argument against doing it. > For those who need this kind of thing there are at least half a > dozen mature products on the market already. And they do SMTP too..! ;-) They are not mutt, as you have yourself already pointed out, in this very message! The point of doing this is that mutt would have those nice features which make it easier and more friendly to use, WITHOUT sacrificing all the power which makes mutt let me be more productive. If you don't want them, you can choose not use them, or even configure mutt without them, so they can't possibly impact your use of mutt. Why deny them to users who do want them? -- 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. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgpWFdsbO00xN.pgp
Description: PGP signature