Re: Email client poll
On Jul/20/1999, Brandon Ibach wrote: you really have so many mailboxes that the longer format used by Mutt is that much of a problem? In my case, yes. I've got ... (counting ...) 20 mailboxes defined in my .muttrc (and a few more for archiving purposes, as you said you have too). A way to see them in columns would be very appreciated, and it's one of the very few things that I miss in Mutt. In fact, I think that's the only one :-) -- Roberto Suarez Soto |flame -- reply to Usenet News posting mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| automatically * Corgo - Lugo - Galicia - Spain |
Re: Email client poll
Quoting Roberto Suarez Soto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 01:57:12AM +0200: On Jul/20/1999, Brandon Ibach wrote: you really have so many mailboxes that the longer format used by Mutt is that much of a problem? In my case, yes. I've got ... (counting ...) 20 mailboxes defined in my .muttrc (and a few more for archiving purposes, as you said you have too). A way to see them in columns would be very appreciated, and it's one of the very few things that I miss in Mutt. In fact, I think that's the only one :-) I'll agree to this. I store messages for each project I'm working on in their own folder, and between that and mailing lists and so forth, I'm up to... hmmm.. $ ls ~/mail | wc -l 57 Wow. Yes, please, columns. -- -- Rich Lafferty --- Sysadmin/Programmer, Information and Instructional Technology Services Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7600 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Email client poll
Brandon Ibach [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: From: dannyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) You can configure it without reading the man page ... errr, I mean, going to the web site, errr, I mean finding the manual, err, I mean, reading the whole fucking manual to find the keyword you want ... errr, I mean, going to the mailing list for an explanation or finding an excellent .muttrc from someone else ... A reasonable complaint, for someone just wanting to get into it quickly. A good template .muttrc with comments on each variable is a good way to go, but something a little better couldn't hurt. Perhaps someone would be interested in putting together a sort of "Mutt configuration tool" which presents all the options through a series of menus, similar to the menu-config tool for Linux kernels (maybe even using the same "dialog" package, or something like it). Then we'd just need to make sure to update the file which drives this system when options are added, changed, obsoleted, etc. I'm curious what benefit you think there is in a menu system over just a well-annotated .muttrc? Presumably what a menu system would do is let you see what each variable does (theoretically using the manual entry for it so we stay consistent) and then let you set the value you want. A .muttrc annotated with the manual entries does the same thing and is viewable/useful on any platform that has any text editor. If you want to group options together in some way to make it easier to find what you're looking for you can do it just as well in a text file as with menus, IMHO. But maybe I'm missing something. Of course, right now we have neither, really. I keep my .muttrc annotated with the manual info, but at the moment it's for .95i. Anyway, some people in this thread have mentioned it being helpful to see good sample .muttrcs, so I'll plug the web site: http://www.mutt.org/links.html#config has links to ~10 different .muttrcs. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 12:18:20AM -0500, dannyman wrote: 3) News support, without reverse-hacking in one of Brandon's old patches. Great! It's a mail reader. Can it make coffee? Can it clean my shoes? No ?? I won't use it then... -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had now way to indicate successful termination of their C Programs. PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990716 18:59]: FYI, Linus Torvalds himself uses Pine. So it's not just newbies or morons. Heh, I love it the way people looks up to Mr Torvalds, "If Linus uses it, it must be good". Like if all things Linus does is great, yeah right... Anders - Anders Andersson[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sanyusan International AB http://www.sanyusan.se/
Re: Email client poll
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 10:47:07AM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990716 18:59]: FYI, Linus Torvalds himself uses Pine. So it's not just newbies or morons. Heh, I love it the way people looks up to Mr Torvalds, "If Linus uses it, it must be good". Like if all things Linus does is great, yeah right... Anders You blaspheme the name of the great honoured and worshipped Mr. Torvalds. How dare you? mark (who dislikes decisions based on loyalty instead of performance) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] __ . . _ ._ . . .__. . ._. .__ . . . .__ | CUE Development(4Y21) |\/| |_| |_| |/|_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | Nortel Networks | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/
Re: Email client poll
Recently, Anders Andersson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990716 18:59]: FYI, Linus Torvalds himself uses Pine. So it's not just newbies or morons. Heh, I love it the way people looks up to Mr Torvalds, "If Linus uses it, it must be good". Like if all things Linus does is great, yeah right... Gee, does noting that Torvalds is not a newbie mean one looks up to him? Yikes! :^) Cheers... -- Alex Lane mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Seabrook, Texas, USA http://www.galexi.com/alex/ TIARA Is A Recursive Acronym!
Re: Email client poll
For what it's worth (hmmm, probably not a whole lot if you think about it!), here's the mailer representation on mutt-* (as percentages of messages with valid X-Mailer/User-Agent header or with the pine message-id). I'm ignoring the sub-versions of mutt and everything = 0.1%... mutt-usersmutt-dev 24.40% |Mutt 95| 22.69% |Mutt 94| 13.90% |Mutt 93| 13.72% |Mutt 95| 9.07% |Mutt 84| 13.48% |Mutt 92| 8.72% |Mutt 91|9.51% |Mutt 87| 7.54% |Mutt 88|6.83% |Mutt 88| 5.45% |Mutt 94|5.67% |Mutt 93| 3.86% |Mutt 96|5.43% |Mutt 96| 3.68% |Mutt 85|4.44% |Mutt 84| 3.45% |Mutt 92|4.39% |Mutt 90| 3.38% |Mutt 89|3.78% |Mutt 86| 2.83% |Mutt 81|3.46% |Mutt 91| 2.69% |Mutt 87|2.24% |Mutt 83| 2.60% |Mutt 90|1.15% |Mutt 85| 2.48% |Mutt 83|0.90% |Mutt 81| 1.30% |Mutt 76|0.79% |Mutt 89| 0.85% |Mutt 86|0.26% |Mutt 82| 0.45% |Mutt 82|0.15% |Windows Eudora Pro v2.2 (32)| 0.36% |pine| 0.11% |Mutt 76| 0.33% |Mutt 79|0.10% |tin/pre-1.4-971127 (UNIX)| 0.11% |ELM [2.3 PL11] for OS/2|0.10% |Mutt 79| 0.11% |Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)| 0.11% |Mutt 74| 0.10% |Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1| 0.10% |Frederik's Registered PMMail 1.51 For OS/2| 0.10% |Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)| -- -e
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:26:10PM -0500, dannyman wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:31:11AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jeremy Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find something else (like I did). There was a time when I like pine better than mutt. :) Why? Are there actually things where pine is better? Some people seem to like a menu-driven system, I think... regards, Gerrit.
Re: Email client poll
On 1999-07-16 12:37:13 +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: Maybe in a further version themes could be added. As you mention later in your own message, mutt is "themable" if you want to call it like that, simply due to the fact that you can include configuration files. The whole point behind creating "themes" would be to have some decent sample configuration files which _only_ concern the user interface appearance, but leave the more advanced features alone.
Re: Email client poll
On 1999-07-15 23:21:47 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: Mutt not being #1 shouldn't be surprising, nor a discouragement. It's a simple fact that people are satisfied with crap. It's not even about people being satisfied with crap. It's about people having different needs. I can totally understand that beginners or cursory users with 1-3 messages per day are just fine with pine. Why should they bother to write configuration files containing several hundred lines of custom key bindings, dozens of hooks, and the like? For them, it will be more economic to use a mailer like pine. Heck, I even know users who are still using mailx. So what? I've been happy with it for some years myself, before MIME became omnipresent, and I started using pine and elm me+ (and, finally, mutt). On the other hand, there are lots of people who have started to like GUI-based MUAs. That's also fine with me, but a GUI-based MUA simply wouldn't fit my personal needs. And I'm rather sure I'm not the only person thinking like that.
Re: Email client poll
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:07:24PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: Heck, I even know users who are still using mailx. So what? I've been happy with it for some years myself, before MIME became omnipresent, and I started using pine and elm me+ (and, finally, mutt). Ah, now I remember why I first installed mutt. Back then I simply used it as a "better ELM", but over the time I discovered its features. You can use mutt as a beginner, but it won't appeal to many beginners, I guess. -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb "How would you rate our government's incompetence? Typical unix response: Unmatched ". PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 03:42:32PM -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: Why in the world would it be beneficial to have pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries available? This smells more like digging for trouble to me. Lynx does it. If I want to do some quick web browsing, and I'm stuck running W95 at the time, it's real nice to be able to just pop open a DOS window and run lynx. The lynx-dev list does get a lot of silly requests for GUI things, but they are just kindly reminded of the fact that lynx is different. Mutt works great under Linux, of course, but things like MicroSoft tools and RealAudio G2 don't. While I wish content providers and friends would use Linux instead of Windows, the facts are what they are. The only reason I'd like a DOS mutt is so when I'm stuck running W95, I could pop open a DOS window and do a little email. As it stands, I have to either: - try to do email with some W95 GUI email thing - shut down windows and boot linux, do email, then shut down linux and boot windows to continue doing what I was doing. - start up a PPP connection, run mutt on a remote *nix system, and transfer any necessary/resulting files.
Re: Re: Email client poll
on Jul 19, Gerrit Holl wrote:
Why?
Are there actually things where pine is better?
Some people seem to like a menu-driven system, I think...
What's wrong with that? I was a long time Pine user before switching to
mutt and I must admit that their menus are quite well designed and make
it easy to use very quickly. You can do whatever you want with a few
keystrokes. I don't really know what made me change for mutt (well,
actually it was a little pressure from a mutt-addict friend) because
pine suited me fine for what I did (of course now I would never consider
the inverse change). But the thing is that at first I was a but puzzled
by mutt's keybindings (which of course totally differ from pine's) and
constantly had to refer to the help before being productive. So a
menu-driven system is IMHO not necessarily a Bad Thing, so long as it is
intuitive and you don't have to dive through (n+1) sub-levels to reach
the desired command.
regards,
--
___
{~._.~}Renaud COLINET |
( Y ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
()~*~()(33)1 48 42 22 80 (home) |
(_)-(_)(33)1 41 75 31 37 (off) |
Re: Re: Email client poll
Thus wrote Renaud Colinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [99.07.19 16:30]: on Jul 19, Gerrit Holl wrote: Why? Are there actually things where pine is better? Some people seem to like a menu-driven system, I think... What's wrong with that? I was a long time Pine user before switching to mutt and I must admit that their menus are quite well designed and make it easy to use very quickly. You can do whatever you want with a few keystrokes. I don't really know what made me change for mutt (well, actually it was a little pressure from a mutt-addict friend) because pine suited me fine for what I did (of course now I would never consider the inverse change). But the thing is that at first I was a but puzzled by mutt's keybindings (which of course totally differ from pine's) and constantly had to refer to the help before being productive. So a menu-driven system is IMHO not necessarily a Bad Thing, so long as it is intuitive and you don't have to dive through (n+1) sub-levels to reach the desired command. Sounds just like my reasons for switching to Mutt :) One thing that helped ease the switch a great deal was the Pine.rc file in contrib/ in the source distribution, to set up Pine-like key bindings. Then I just went nuts from there, configuring all kinds of stuff, some of which I always wished Pine had (such as running a program to generate a signature, and having colour). I would never consider a switch back either... -- --- Chris Gushue[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.thezone.net/~seymour/index.php3 ICQ:409207 GPG Fingerprint: 5188 B69C 21B4 8932 D807 9D59 6267 7C5F 6174 4D90 --- PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:26:03AM +0200, Gerrit Holl wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:26:10PM -0500, dannyman wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:31:11AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find something else (like I did). There was a time when I like pine better than mutt. :) Why? Are there actually things where pine is better? Some people seem to like a menu-driven system, I think... This is border-line troll ... 1) The commands are listed at the bottom - immediately available. 2) You can configure it without reading the man page ... errr, I mean, going to the web site, errr, I mean finding the manual, err, I mean, reading the whole fucking manual to find the keyword you want ... errr, I mean, going to the mailing list for an explanation or finding an excellent .muttrc from someone else ... 3) News support, without reverse-hacking in one of Brandon's old patches. 4) Nice, short, multi-column listing of mailboxes. Not that I prefer pine, but these things used to be more important to me. Especially basic configuration ... just going through a menu of options and setting them one-by-one with contextual help available for each item. Pine does a few things right, and some of many of these things will ultimately find their ways in to mutt. -danny -- dannyman - http://www.dannyland.org/~dannyman/
Re: Email client poll
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 05:06:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think we could expand this base a lot if pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries were easily available. I think people using binaries aren't very likely to contribute. Maybe in raw percent, but the actual use would go up so much, the number of contributors would grow. Second, there are many kinds of contributions I see useful beyond actual code, like documentation, translations. Of course, the structure of Mutt makes it hard for someone who can't code to contribute. (Which was part of the incentivce for my earlier efforts with scripting languages) As for why may people like pine, esp, ISPs, I think it related to a personal pet peve of mine about mutt: No per command help, mini-menus if you will. My experience with Apache/Gui-dev showed that even expert users drop into a 'dummy' mode when doing something they do rarely. IMHO, the 'help' functions of mutt are basicly pretty bad and that hurts the broader use base -- if were an ISP, I'd never consider mutt as the default reader. The ablity to have min-help/menus but only turn them on when you need them, OR in a novice mode, I think, would answer the 'pine challege' quite nicely. -- Later ... Rich Roth --- On-the-Net Direct: Box 927, Northampton, MA 01061, Voice: 413-586-9668 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Url: http://www.on-the-net.com ~~~ www.i-depth.com lets you Add Instant Depth to your Website~~~ ~~~ Adding depths to Web presences and Internet providers ~
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:31:11AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Jeremy Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find something else (like I did). There was a time when I like pine better than mutt. :) -danny -- dannyman - http://www.dannyland.org/~dannyman/
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:37:13PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: Thus spake Mark Mielke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Also many of them wouldn't know how to use a non "impressing" view of their mailbox. It's so much cooler to have messages fade and titles Standard-Mutt is b/w for me without my config files. Maybe in a further version themes could be added. That would make it a mutt-newbie easy to make it well-looking and have nice key-bindings. Maybe also a folder-configure-program, that lets you add folders by a GUI. snip You can use a *term to do this. Eterm, for one, supports themes and works with Mutt. As a matter fact, one of themes in the package is one for mutt, but pretty easy to create your own. -- Hal B [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux helps those who help themselves
Re: Email client poll
* Jeremy Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find something else (like I did).
Re: Email client poll
* David Thorburn-Gundlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % Why is it so important that Mutt be #1 on a Slashdot poll? % Just curious. BECAUSE MUTT RULZ, d00d!!! Then it should promote itself, G.
Re: Email client poll
* Tom Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we can win 'mindshare', and mutt will continue to work as the 'net evolves. See http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html. I think we're not giving people enough credit. Just because they use some other mailer we think it's because they're forced to or don't know any better. It is possible that they actually like it better than Mutt.. not everyone has the same noodle in their gord. FYI, Linus Torvalds himself uses Pine. So it's not just newbies or morons.
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:46:09AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we can win 'mindshare', and mutt will continue to work as the 'net evolves. See http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html. I think we're not giving people enough credit. Just because they use some other mailer we think it's because they're forced to or don't know any better. It is possible that they actually like it better than Mutt.. not everyone has the same noodle in their gord. FYI, Linus Torvalds himself uses Pine. So it's not just newbies or morons. I referred to "In the Beginning was the Command Line" for it's description of 'mindshare' - not to belittle anyone. If there aren't enough mutt users, mutt will not be kept up to date, and as new mail protocols etc. are created, mutt will eventually stop working. This, to me, is the main reason we need to keep a good base of users. I also think we could expand this base a lot if pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries were easily available.
Re: Email client poll
Tom Hall [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:46:09AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This, to me, is the main reason we need to keep a good base of users. I also think we could expand this base a lot if pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries were easily available. I kind of ignored this the first time around, but this time I have to comment. Why in the world would it be beneficial to have pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries available? This smells more like digging for trouble to me. We already have the same questions asked and answered on a daily basis on here. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone ask how you set a different from address depending on the mailbox or who sent it to you. If keeping a good base of users so development continues is our goal, then Win users are not the ones we want. If mutt was developed commercially that would be a case you could make, because they might drop the product simply based on the number of people using it. But in an open project like mutt the way it keeps going is people contributing to it. Not whining about it because it doesn't have a pretty window with a progress bar everytime you do anything with it. Or because they have to work with a config file instead of clicking an options button. Having a port to those platforms isn't a problem, because they still have to compile the thing to make it work, which requires at least a measure of brainwave activity. Make it available precompiled, esp in a self-installing package, and this list will go down the tubes. No thank you. Let the windows l^Husers keep using their Outlook Express or Eudora garbage, or else switch to linux. Just my $.02 PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:03:57PM -0600, Tom Hall wrote: If there aren't enough mutt users, mutt will not be kept up to date, and as new mail protocols etc. are created, mutt will eventually stop working. This, to me, is the main reason we need to keep a good base of users. I also think we could expand this base a lot if pre-compiled DOS and/or W32 binaries were easily available. Yarn users would be good candidates to use Mutt if DOS/W32 binaries were available. -rex
Re: Email client poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: * Jeremy Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. It is possible that some people actually like Pine better than Mutt, as absurd as that seems to us ;) If they really don't like it, they'll find something else (like I did). Yes, it's possible: my point was that the "good things" about Pine people were mentioning were things Mutt does quite well as well. And if "easy telnet/ssh access on modem lines" is their main issue (it's the one the were mentioning the most) then Mutt could easily be better for them since it's less bloated and faster. But yeah, people that really care and want something better will go looking. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:26:02AM +0200, J Horacio MG wrote: Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. mutt is not commandline based. Ok, you can send a mail via the commandline if you must, but you can be sure that I wouldn't use mutt if it was commandline based like say mail! -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. -- F. P. Jones PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Thus spake Hal Burgiss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. When ignorance is bliss ... Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" *sigh* Alex -- ** I doubt, therefore I might be. ** *** Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get PGP-Key ***
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? * Faster. * Smaller. * Doesn't crash. * Colorful * Can properly encrypt mail * Does all and even more than what OE does * Not so buggy (security etc.) * Free! * Open Source * System wide preferences! "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" * to show my individuality * because I can randomize my signatures with it * because I'd like to be able to read my mail even when N$ crashes * because I'd like to answer fast * I'm a keyboard person * I'd like to know that there is source I can use if things go amiss. * Modularity -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb The doctrine of human equality reposes on this: that there is no man really clever who has not found that he is stupid. PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Horacio -- ...and then J Horacio MG said... % % Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. Actually, I saw PINE out ahead at something like 26%, while Communicator was only at 22% or so... % That's surely due to mutt being command line based. Yeah. Thank Heavens ;-) % % Regards, % -- % Horacio :-D -- David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! "Why2k? Well, I didn't think at the time that I could charge any more!" Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:18:45AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" * to show my individuality * because I can randomize my signatures with it * because I'd like to be able to read my mail even when N$ crashes * because I'd like to answer fast * I'm a keyboard person * I'd like to know that there is source I can use if things go amiss. * Modularity "because mutt is very good and totally fits _my_ needs." :-) Cheers, Chris -- Chris Tilbury, UNIX Systems Administrator, IT Services, University of Warwick PHONE: 024 7652 3365 / FAX: 024 7652 3267 / MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Email client poll
Alexander Langer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? - standard compliance (if they care; if they don't you have another lecture to give them ;) - very accessible remotely on slow modem lines -- read your mail *anywhere* without the insecurity of web based mail - much faster (compare deleting 3000 messages in Mutt to 1 in Outlook: Mutt is 'tag-pattern, pattern, delete tagged, zip zip done', Outlook is 'slowly repaint the screen with spiffy animation') - no stupid reply formatting - it doesn't crash if you sneeze - threaded display and thread collapsing - configuration, configuration, configuration! - if they are on mailing lists, the mailing list handling must be mentioned - you can easily access all the headers and define your own - OE requires you run Windows somewhere. Mutt requires you run Un*x somewhere. Un*x Windows. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Holger Eitzenberger [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Most *nix's come with pine installed by default. If you get a telnet account somewhere you get pine, if you login to your uni account you most likely will see pine. Reason? Maybe it has to do with pines limited possibilities to configure (easier for newbies), which makes it also the preferred MUA installed by sysadmins since it's likely that fewer problems arise. Good point(s). For me it was elm that was there to use, so switching to Mutt when I found it was just a logical upgrade. A lot of the pro-Pine comments were "I can use it with telnet", which obviously is not something just Pine has (duh). So if it's just inertia (and we care), then maybe some advocacy needs to be done. Maybe we should point out other areas where mutt is superior over other MUAs and make them publicly available. I've got some stuff like this on the web page -- it seems to me that people need to first hear about Mutt and be curious enough to look into it, and when that happens they will go to the web page. I'm always open to suggestions for the site. As for getting people to look if there is a better console mailer out there than they have, I dunno. Pine does a lot of stuff in bad ways but people tend to not realize it's bad ways until they see it done right. "You never miss what you never know." One advantage though is that people that care about the kind of issues Mutt excels in (size, configurability, standards compliance) are not going to be happy with something else and *are* likely to go looking. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 03:02:54PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote: Holger Eitzenberger [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: ...So if it's just inertia (and we care), then maybe some advocacy needs to be done. If it's advocacy you want, release pre-compiled binaries for W32 and/or DOS. PC hackers will try it, love it, and spread the word !
Re: Email client poll
John Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. I found one on somebody's site, I think Sven's, but I'm not 100% sure (I'm sure somebody will pipe up and correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, it's 90x36 (though I use tags to shrink it smaller). A direct link to it is http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4/buttons/mutt.button.gif .adam -- [ Adam Lazur | Computer Engr Ugrad | Lehigh Univ. | _ __ ] [icq 3354423 | http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4|__( | /_ ] "The glorious MEEPT would like to bring all the divided factions of linux into one big divided faction." -MEEPT @ /.
Re: Email client poll
John Franklin [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. Sven has one on his site, so does Brandon Long; I dunno who originally had it. There are also several versions of the 'little dog running around' bar out there. I don't go for unnecessary images that bloat pages, but these two are prolly worth working in... 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. Sven's is bigger than that but I'll prolly play with resizing it down to 88x31. Here's something else I may work in (with the author's permission) ... found it in the /. comments: Ode to Mutt by Trick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) When I'm stuck, or in a rut, Or been dumped by some worthless slut; My boss has made me bust a nut, Or I've got stress pains in my gut; Some aliens have probed my butt, Or I've just had my jaw wired shut; I've got a nasty paper cut, Or anchovies from Pizza Hut; I've missed an easy golfing putt, Or feel as dead as old King Tut; I still stand proud, my jaw I jut, I don't have much, but I have mutt. Yay mutt. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:26:33PM -0400, John Franklin wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. A good idea that is. Maybe there will even be something like a constest, but then there should be something to win... don't know. But for sure an _official_ mutt logo is IMHO very important and i will be happily one of those to put it on his webpage. IMHO it's also important that it's just _one official_ logo instead of several more or less unofficial ones. -- Holger -- + PGP || GnuPG key - finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +++ Debian/GNU Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ ICQ: 2882018 +++ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Why is it so important that Mutt be #1 on a Slashdot poll? Just curious. It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Holger Eitzenberger zei Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:07:03AM +0200 dat: On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:26:33PM -0400, John Franklin wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. IMHO that's one of the great things about the site as well as mutt itself. I visit the page for the information on it and I want it as fast as possible. If, however, everybody is _so_ excited about fancy images, logos and frames, I would apreciate it if a lynx-friendly version was maintained as well. Thankfully, stasinos
Re: Email client poll
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 04:49:04PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
I get the impression, though, that a lot of "the faithful" don't read /.
much since the s/n ratio got so bad. Most of the comments seem to be
newbies. The informal survey of mail headers done a while back by someone
on this list may be more telling of use among Mutt's "target" user base.
i made a quick grep | awk | sort | uniq -c ... survey on a few of my
maillist archives:
shortcommings:
i used the following line to count the header:
grep X-Mailer: listfile | awk '{ print $1, $2 }' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
that is the header is cut of after the first word, so Windows,
Internet and others may be different mailers counted as the same
pine does not use the X-Mailer: header, so i had
to revert to the Message-ID, which fortunately starts with Pine
people who post more are overrepresented...
below the counts i list how many of the headers where actually found,
to help you relativize the numbers a bit...
our local linux user group at the technical university in vienna
(more than 350 members)
101 X-Mailer: XFMail
111 X-Mailer: Z-Mail
130 X-Mailer: KMail
232 X-Mailer: Microsoft
323 X-Mailer: Internet
350 X-Mailer: Windows
497 X-Mailer: exmh
2345 X-Mailer: Mutt
2553 X-Mailer: ELM
2980 X-Mailer: Mozilla
5215 Message-ID: Pine
36 counts of User-Agent:
10226 counts of X-Mailer:
11228 counts of Message-ID:
17883 counts of From
Window Maker:
207 X-Mailer: Windows
211 X-Mailer: Internet
409 X-Mailer: VM
412 X-Mailer: exmh
445 X-Mailer: Microsoft
475 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
490 X-Mailer: ELM
694 X-Mailer: Gnus
946 X-Mailer: XFMail
3071 X-Mailer: Mutt
4103 X-Mailer: Mozilla
6007 Message-ID: Pine
7 counts of User-Agent:
12105 counts of X-Mailer:
16007 counts of Message-ID:
22683 counts of From
bugtraq
171 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
177 X-Mailer: Internet
256 X-Mailer: ELM
316 X-Mailer: Mozilla
321 X-Mailer: Microsoft
359 X-Mailer: Mutt
1259 Message-ID: Pine
19 counts of User-Agent:
2077 counts of X-Mailer:
4152 counts of Message-ID:
4146 counts of From
and for the fun of it, mutt:
1 X-Mailer: AtDot
1 X-Mailer: Magnus
1 X-Mailer: TFS
1 X-Mailer: Urbi
1 X-Mailer: VM
1 X-Mailer: XFMail
1 X-Mailer: mutt
1 X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com
2 X-Mailer: Novell
2 X-Mailer: Z-Mail
2 X-Mailer: exmh
3 X-Mailer: dMail
4 X-Mailer: Internet
4 X-Mailer: Mew
5 X-Mailer: Gnus
5 X-Mailer: MailCity
6 X-Mailer: Forte
7 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
9 X-Mailer: Windows
18 X-Mailer: ELM
23 X-Mailer: Microsoft
26 X-Mailer: Mozilla
3175 X-Mailer: Mutt
59 Message-ID: Pine
370 User-Agent: Mutt
370 counts of User-Agent:
3297 counts of X-Mailer:
3672 counts of Message-ID:
3779 counts of From
===
greetings, martin.
--
Life is not fair. But the root password helps.
--
unix systemadministrator iaeste.or.at iaeste.tuwien.ac.at mb.iaeste.or.at.
institut hochbau II an der tu wien.
email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at.
black.linux-m68k.org.
stuts.org.
mud.at.
Martin B"ahr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Email client poll
Lars Hecking [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: The current Slashdot Poll is "Which email client do you use?" So far, only about 8% of the votes are for mutt, at a total of about 4.5k votes. Still 8% at 8k votes. I get the impression, though, that a lot of "the faithful" don't read /. much since the s/n ratio got so bad. Most of the comments seem to be newbies. The informal survey of mail headers done a while back by someone on this list may be more telling of use among Mutt's "target" user base. The last /. mail reader poll didn't even list Mutt IIRC. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:26:02AM +0200, J Horacio MG wrote: Jeremy Blosser dixit: Uh, we do, and even crashed netscape when I tried a second time (just to check if I had done it right the first time, of course). Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. When ignorance is bliss ... -- Hal B [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux helps those who help themselves
Re: Email client poll
J Horacio MG [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Jeremy Blosser dixit: I get the impression, though, that a lot of "the faithful" don't read /. much since the s/n ratio got so bad. Most of the comments seem to be newbies. The informal survey of mail headers done a while back by someone on this list may be more telling of use among Mutt's "target" user base. Uh, we do, and even crashed netscape when I tried a second time (just to check if I had done it right the first time, of course). Er, I didn't mean *only* newbies read it... no offense intended ;) Just that this prolly isn't a representative sampling from the group of people that would be expected to use Mutt. Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. Pine's in the lead right now, but most of the comments for it seem to be along the lines of "it does everything", which isn't a Mutt design goal -- though a lot of the specific things Pine does that they are mentioning are things Mutt handles just fine. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
