In a recent note, Henry Nelson said: > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:41:01 +0900 (JST) > > > > More directly, why would someone want to mail from Lynx with Pine (or > > > Mutt or Elm)? Why not just mail with Pine straight off? > > > > > "Mailto:"; URLs? > > In other words, Lynx's native support of "mailto:"; URLs is too clumsy?
No, merely personal preference. I'd like to be able to use the same MUA with all applications that support E-mail responses. Lynx is justified in supplying a rudimentary mailer. But when a user asks, "Why doesn't Lynx do what Pine does for feature X?" the proper answer is to be able to tell that user how to use Pine as Lynx's MUA. > Or lynxcgi's, lynxprog's and/or pseudo-proxies are too hard to set up? > I don't claim to be a Lynx expert; I just hack it occasionally. :-) I got a lynxcgi to work once; I don't see how it applies to the activity resulting from selecting a mailto: URL. I can find mention of neither "lynxprog" nor "pseudo=prox[yi]" in "Lynx Users Guide v2.8.4". -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
