Re: How to send a return receipt
Hi,
Derek I can only agree with you in everything you wrote.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:52AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Actually I think this is a fine example of why that argument is total
> nonsense. Since SMTP support has been added, in what measurable way
> has it caused Mutt to suck more? Is the memory footprint
> *substantially* larger? Has it caused mutt to become noticably slower?
Additional I would like to second this and add: I'm working with a pretty
low-end laptop with actually only having 512MB of RAM. I do use GNOME,
therefore I already have a quiet big memory consumption. I do use several mutt
instances in several xterms, so the memory footprint of mutt is multiplied by
2 till 5 or so. My system is fast and responsive. I can work with mutt with no
harm at all. And I do use a Debian built of mutt, which contains quiet a lot
features (including IMAP, SMTP, Header Cache and PGP support). So you see: You
do not need to have 2G of RAM to hold up your totally valid argument. Even if
those patch would be added (face it: its about 20k of added code) then the
memory consumption wouldn't even be 2% more then now, so this bloat argument is
not feasible. Nor would the size of the executable increase a lot.
Regards,
Patrick