> > Why would you want to trust your email to a new kid on the > > block? > > This is a senseless argument. It shouldn't matter whether the > programs are old or new. If they work better for you, you > should use them. If ssh+screen+mh is your ideal setup, fine. > If I want to use programs like acme mail (or even thunderbird) > because they're better for me, then it shouldn't matter how old > or `proven' they are.
Use what works for you. I was merely pointing out that if, like me, you want to be able to search/read very old email many years from now, you want a stable format to store email and associated meta data in. If you have to convert every few years you may to lose some context that relied on the peculiarities of the program you are converting from. > (I assume you use ed to compose your mail - why would you > want to trust your editing to the new kid on the block?) I don't really care if you use a web browser or a kernel debugger's peek/poke to compose mail. It is about formats. If the format is standardized you can upgrade without worrying about the tool. Unfortunately the email storage format is not standardized. And I also include things like folders, message tags (read, replied, forwarded etc.) in that. Worse, MUAs of the day don't always document the on-disk format or promise to not beak it in a new version. So you are pretty much at the mercy of the MUA. MH is no different but it is relatively bug free and many of these things have settled down.
