| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No mutt!?!No mutt!?!Posted May 20, 2005 4:16 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559)Parent article: Outlook vs Evolution vs Kontact: an e-mail client comparison (opensourceversus)
Just kidding. Well kinda. Outside of displaying html email (which is often and should be defaulted to off), mutt does offer many of the features available in GUI clients, and is utterly customizable.
(Log in to post comments)
No mutt!?! Posted May 20, 2005 5:38 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] 1. Mutt is NOT a groupware app.2. Try to persuade an average person to switch to mutt (or, for that matter, anything else that doesn't have buttons to click on) from Outlook, even if only the email functionality is needed.
No mutt!?! Posted May 20, 2005 16:07 UTC (Fri) by brother_rat (subscriber, #1895) [Link] 3. Try persuading *anybody* to switch to mutt -- all the remaining console MUA users are very firmly entrenched.
"You can take away pine when you prize my cold, dead fingers from the keyboard" ...or something like that.
No mutt!?! Posted May 22, 2005 23:30 UTC (Sun) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] I tried every graphical email client out there, including gmail and apple's mail client. Graphical systems are slow to use and take up a vast amount of screen space. In the end I moved to pine because it has a simple, fast, self-documenting interface, can deal with large inboxes and runs on a whiff of cpu power. When people complain about how long they spend reading email I point out that I spend less than 10 minutes a day on email by using a fast client and often as not, they try switching too.
No mutt!?! Posted May 20, 2005 16:44 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] The main reason I switched away from mutt is that mutt doesn't (didn't?)handle multiple IMAP accounts very well.
No mutt!?! Posted May 23, 2005 20:47 UTC (Mon) by dw (subscriber, #12017) [Link] Use the braindead macro system to make up for that. ;)
|
|
||||||||||||