Re: why is mutt better?
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 10:48:01AM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 11:28:59AM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote: Bat! does have a couple of features that Mutt lacks, but those are the features that I do not need. Maybe others do. What features does it have? It can be a "mail server" for the local network (I don't quite remembet what kind of server is that -- maybe it's just The Bat! server + a couple of The Bat! clients), it has some automatic form processing (whatever that means). And, of course, it has lots of things builtin, like mail filtering, HTML rendering, multiple POP3/IMAP mailboxes, direct sending via SMTP, randomized one-line signatures, builtin editor (that is actually useful), address book, etc. Mutt relies on external programs for most of these (and I don't have problems with that... except maybe that it is hard to get all Win32 versions of all required programs ;) Maybe there's a full list somewhere at www.ritlabs.com. Unfortunatelly, I cannot use Mutt under Windows NT: it dumps core in the pager. I've posted stack backtrace on mutt-dev, but nobody seems to can't you use an external pager? I can, but I don't want to. Marius Gedminas -- This is an object-oriented system. If we change anything, the users object.
Re: why is mutt better?
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 19:20:28 +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote: It can be a "mail server" for the local network (I don't quite remembet what kind of server is that -- maybe it's just The Bat! server + a couple of The Bat! clients), it has some automatic form processing (whatever that means). And, of course, it has lots of things builtin, like mail filtering, HTML rendering, multiple POP3/IMAP mailboxes, direct sending via SMTP, randomized one-line signatures, builtin editor (that is actually useful), address book, etc. Mutt relies on external programs for most of these (and I don't have problems with that... except maybe that it is hard to get all Win32 versions of all required programs ;) So, Mutt is much better. I don't see the point of having lots of builtins that increase the program size when an external program can do the same thing, and often better. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Computer science / computer arithmetic / Arénaire project at LIP, ENS-Lyon
Re: why is mutt better?
Eugene Lee [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Having said this, I saw one feature in TheBat that I'd like to see Mutt have someday: the ability to create and use templates for new messages, replies, forwarded messages, etc. This should be possible now... 1) create the templates you want, using your editor of choice 2) create macros that change the value of 'editor' to call a script/etc. that processes the reply+template and calls your editor, then set 'editor' back to the default, eg: macro index r :set editor=replyscriptenterreply:set editor=defaultenter With forms of this method the "template" isn't even limited to a text-based construct, it can really be anything at all. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ PGP signature
Re: why is mutt better?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 06:39:45PM +, J McKitrick wrote: I just got in a debate over email clients, and my windows friend argues anything i can do in mutt, he can do in TheBat! just as easily. I checked the feature list, and it is extensive. Most of what mutt offers, thebat offers. Why is the advantage of mutt, or any text-based email client? I use The Bat! at work. It is good, but Mutt is much better (for me, at least). I miss hooks, macros, patterns, mailing list support, replying to multiple e-mails with one message, the limit command, etc. The Bat! does have a couple of features that Mutt lacks, but those are the features that I do not need. Maybe others do. Unfortunatelly, I cannot use Mutt under Windows NT: it dumps core in the pager. I've posted stack backtrace on mutt-dev, but nobody seems to have noticed it (and I don't blame the developers -- they are busy finishing Mutt 1.2 under Unix). Marius Gedminas -- Microsoft does have a Year 2000 problem. We're it.
Re: why is mutt better?
I suppose my main reason for using mutt is that it runs on Linux and (my version of) it can handle Unicode. I think the only other options for a Unicode MUA on Linux are Mozilla and a suitably patched bleeding-edge Emacs. (On Windows there's Outlook, of course, which apparently handles charsets rather well.) Having switched to mutt from rmail in Emacs there are some other things I now appreciate, such as its speed, threads, MIME-handling, and PGP. You could probably get those things in Emacs, apart from the speed. I still use Emacs as my editor with mutt. Perhaps I should make jed do Unicode so I have an alternative ... Edmund
Re: why is mutt better?
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: Having said this, I saw one feature in TheBat that I'd like to see Mutt have someday: the ability to create and use templates for new messages, replies, forwarded messages, etc. Definitely. Especially for my administrative mail like: "Your mailserver is an open relay", etc. I personally think this is better done in your editor. I have all my templates put into ~/.dau/ and use the attached macro set. It's started with ,dau and opens a window with an ls -l. Wander around with hjkl and select the appropriate file with enter. CU, Sec -- "Computers make very fast, very accurate, mistakes." " The File-BrowserReader. Very handsome. map ,dau o~/.dau/"dddu__filelist " start the file reader. Directory in register d. map __filelist :split . !!ls -l d __LN-__mm nn __LN- /[0-9] \K.. \=[0-9]CR3E2l " crate mapping for enter noremap __mm :map CR __rm0__LN-mai:r d`a"ay$:q! @a " remove mapping noremap __rm :unmap CRCR PGP signature
Re: why is mutt better?
On 2000-03-10 10:07:11 +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: Perhaps I should make jed do Unicode so I have an alternative ... This sounds like a great idea. ;-) -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Re: why is mutt better?
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 02:20:27AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: :Eugene Lee [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: : : Having said this, I saw one feature in TheBat that I'd like to see Mutt : have someday: the ability to create and use templates for new messages, : replies, forwarded messages, etc. : :This should be possible now... : :1) create the templates you want, using your editor of choice :2) create macros that change the value of 'editor' to call a script/etc. :that processes the reply+template and calls your editor, then set 'editor' :back to the default, eg: : :macro index r :set editor=replyscriptenterreply:set editor=defaultenter : :With forms of this method the "template" isn't even limited to a text-based :construct, it can really be anything at all. In this aspect, Mutt is far more configurable because of its ability to call external programs to do things. However, it's not possible to insert information --- that Mutt already knows --- into a template without writing another email parser. For example, let's say I have a template for replying to messages from a particular mailing list. My template might look like this: Hullo, %%%FROM%%%! I have a comment about your message about "%%%SUBJECT%%%" on %%%DATE%%%. - begin original message - %%%BODY%%% - end original message - %%%SIGNATURE%%% As you can see, there is information about the email that I'd like to insert in place of the "%%%" strings. Mutt already knows what this stuff is. But there's no mechanism to pass this information onto an external script. Such a script has to figure this information out by itself by parsing the headers, checking for RFC compliancy, fixing special ISO-8859 characters, handling MIME attachments, etc. Maybe Mutt could pass this information along as environment variables to an external script to handle. Or maybe when Mutt creates a temp file, it can read in a template and substitute all the information first, before passing the temp file onto the user's editor. -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why is mutt better?
On 2000-03-10 02:57:41 -0800, Eugene Lee wrote: Hullo, %%%FROM%%%! I have a comment about your message about "%%%SUBJECT%%%" on %%%DATE%%%. set attribution="Hullo, %F!\n\nI have a comment about\ your message about \"%s\" on %d.\n\n\ - begin original message -" - end original message - set post_indent_string="- end original message " -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Re: why is mutt better?
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:04:42PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: :On 2000-03-10 02:57:41 -0800, Eugene Lee wrote: : :set attribution="Hullo, %F!\n\nI have a comment about\ : your message about \"%s\" on %d.\n\n\ : - begin original message -" :set post_indent_string="- end original message " I was wrong saying that there wasn't a way in Mutt to pass this info onto an external script. I stand corrected. Excuse me while I RTFM. Yet again. :) But setting a separate set of attribute/post_indent_string values for each send-hook could get ugly with the escapes needed for extra quotes. -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why is mutt better?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 13:57:08 -0600, David DeSimone wrote: If TheBat! does everything that he wants it to, then he should use it. No I received several messages sent by TheBat, and they weren't really RFC-compliant! It was breaking threads or something like that. Perhaps this has been fixed. And the sig separator was incorrect. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Computer science / computer arithmetic / Arénaire project at LIP, ENS-Lyon
Re: why is mutt better?
Hi! ...and then J McKitrick said... % I just got in a debate over email clients, and my windows friend % argues anything i can do in mutt, he can do in TheBat! just as easily. % I checked the feature list, and it is extensive. Most of what mutt Any pointers to such a thing so that we can compare? % offers, thebat offers. Why is the advantage of mutt, or any % text-based email client? Well, you mentioned your "windows" friend, so that's one reason right there: mutt runs under unix-like variants. I like text-based email clients because I like text-based email. No GUIs for this guy. I also like all of the hook functionality and the ability to do various things based on various conditions. I haven't seen anything else that comes close. I'll leave it to someone who really takes advantage of mutt's featureset to plug it -- once we have any idea what we're up against, so to speak. Without a comparative list of features, just throw the mutt manual at any challengers (and hope to hit 'em square on ;-) % -- % -= jm =- :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: why is mutt better?
J McKitrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got in a debate over email clients, and my windows friend argues anything i can do in mutt, he can do in TheBat! just as easily. Such arguments rarely lead to a useful exchange of information. They more usually end up as "My computer can beat up your computer" type of "discussion." Is your friend actually interested in learning from this exchange, or does he just want to tell you how great his program is? I checked the feature list, and it is extensive. Most of what mutt offers, thebat offers. Why is the advantage of mutt, or any text-based email client? If TheBat! does everything that he wants it to, then he should use it. Mutt isn't trying to take over the world. :) -- David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there is no man really clever who has not Hewlett-Packard | found that he is stupid." -- Gilbert K. Chesterson UX WTEC Engineer |PGP: 5B 47 34 9F 3B 9A B0 0D AB A6 15 F1 BB BE 8C 44
Re: why is mutt better?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:22:05PM +, J McKitrick wrote: [snip] Of course, the bat doesn't support IMAP, while mutt does. Other than that, it looks like it's just a matter of GUI vs text. Hmmm... not according to it's feature list. "support for imap4, pop, apop, smtp protocols" regards, alan -- Arcterex -=|=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=|=- http://arcterex.ufies.org '... I was worried they were going to say "you don't have enough LSD in your system to do UNIX programming."' -- Paul Tomblin in a.s.r
Re: why is mutt better?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 01:57:08PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote: Such arguments rarely lead to a useful exchange of information. They more usually end up as "My computer can beat up your computer" type of "discussion." Is your friend actually interested in learning from this exchange, or does he just want to tell you how great his program is? Actually, maybe it's my fault here. I always tell him my unix box can beat up his windows box with one hard drive tied behind its back. He just argues that windows is simpler, and that power tools should be made easier to use. Oh, well. Different strokes. -- -= jm =- --- Student Loan Officer: "Mr. Wright? We'd like to know what you did with the $30,000 dollars we gave you for college." Steven Wright: "I gave it to my friend Bob, and he built a nuclear weapon with it. And i'd really appreciate it if you didn't call me anymore."
Re: why is mutt better?
Actually, maybe it's my fault here. I always tell him my unix box can beat up his windows box with one hard drive tied behind its back. He just argues that windows is simpler, and that power tools should be made easier to use. But then they wouldn't be power tools anymore ;-)
Re: why is mutt better?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 06:39:45PM +, J McKitrick wrote: : :I just got in a debate over email clients, and my windows friend :argues anything i can do in mutt, he can do in TheBat! just as easily. :I checked the feature list, and it is extensive. Most of what mutt :offers, thebat offers. Why is the advantage of mutt, or any :text-based email client? - uses any editor you want (like any Unix mail client) - has extensive hook mechanism (although choice of actions isn't) - spawn subshells to do whatever - tags messages without moving them to another folder/mailbox Having said this, I saw one feature in TheBat that I'd like to see Mutt have someday: the ability to create and use templates for new messages, replies, forwarded messages, etc. -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why is mutt better?
on Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 06:20:07PM -0800, Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 06:39:45PM +, J McKitrick wrote: : :I just got in a debate over email clients, and my windows friend :argues anything i can do in mutt, he can do in TheBat! just as easily. :I checked the feature list, and it is extensive. Most of what mutt :offers, thebat offers. Why is the advantage of mutt, or any :text-based email client? - uses any editor you want (like any Unix mail client) - has extensive hook mechanism (although choice of actions isn't) - spawn subshells to do whatever - tags messages without moving them to another folder/mailbox What is thebat like for speed? Mutt is very fast at reading and sorting large mail folders. BB -- Bevan Broun ph (08) 9380 1587 Computer Systems Officer fax (08) 9380 1065 Dept. Electrical and Electronic Engineering University of Western Australia rm. G70
