On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:26:18AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:18:49AM -0500, Tom Diehl wrote: > > Seriously though, have you found a good replacment for pine? > > If so what is it? > > In all seriousness: in what way is mutt _not_ a good replacement for pine? > Sure, it's got configurationitis, but these days, aren't people who are > looking for an e-mail client that Just Works (a la Havoc) going to go for an > X11-based option? Or webmail, even.
pine was developed for universities, right. Target audience: thousands of random students that aren't used to unix or the command line logging on to a central UNIX server. It seems like the main point of pine was to be less cryptic than elm etc. I would be willing to bet that pine's default config wipes the floor with mutt's default config in a usability test, though pine has some silliness also, mutt has some behaviors that are just plain old bizarre. I won't bother to start a thread on exactly which those are and why. ;-) You may well be right that most people have moved to GUI stuff these days, when I was in school most students still used the UNIX servers, but I'm already old enough to be out of touch. ;-) Havoc -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
