On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:42:40PM -0700, Mike & Tracy Holt wrote:
> *some* people (for sentimental or whatever reasons) want to cling to archaic
> text only mail readers, that nobody should be able to use HTML. I've also
> noticed that some (not all) of the people that claim HTML is evil tend to
> have a .signature file that takes half a page!! (I find that more annoying
My main reason for suggesting to not use HTML junk in mail isn't the
bandwith wasted, but more that there isn't any gain in using HTML for mails.
HTML belongs to the web, and not to mails
> the message (my answer would be to use Netscape or Mozilla!!) BUT text is
I don't "cling" to my "archaic" mail reader. I'd be perfectly fine to use a
HTML compliant MUA, but only if it meets my criterias:
- Has to be totally usable without the mouse and that comfortable
- GPG integration is a must
- Mailbox files (mutliple) must be easily integratable, OR: filters have to
be 100% procmail comfortable OR there must be a procmail recipe converter
- Header lines should be editable with each message and I must be allowed to
add whatever line I want
- It has to work perfectly with Umlauts (�,�,�....). With that I mean, that
it must add the appropriate header lines (Mime-Version, Content-Type) when a
umlaut appears in the body and it must encode umlauts in the subject line
- Threaded view is also a must
My "archaic" MUA mutt does all that, is easy to use, easy to configure. Why
should I want to switch to a cumbersome HTML X based MUA? Just because
*some* people (for whatever reasons) want to bloat their mails with
unnecessary things in their mails?
But I'm actually more than eager to test any MUA you suggest that conforms
to my criterias. Up to now I haven't found one though, or the only one I
found is (X)Emacs GNUS, but I didn't yet get around to configure and learn
that "beast".
Alexander Skwar
--
Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com
Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys
ICQ: 7328191
PGP signature
