On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:42:19PM -0800, Dwight Johnson wrote:
> Only in one respect, that I can see based on my brief exposure, is mutt
> better -- mutt is a better _threaded_ mail reader. It looks like a lot of
> effort has been put into mutt's threading features. People who want a
> threaded mail reader may well prefer mutt. Since I want to process my
> mail _strictly_ in arrival order, threaded is not a feature I would ever
> use.
I have used pine for a few years and switched to mutt because a bug in
3.96, 4.10 and 4.20 concerning html-attachments. I see the bug is no
longer there in 4.31.
With Pine I just changed the sort order to the subject-line when I
read mailing list and that worked well. Mutt's advantage is that I
can delete a whole thread with one keystroke.
An advantage of pine which I do not find in mutt is that I could
record email addresses from anywhere in the message into the address
book. With mutt I can create an alias from the sender's address and
have to put other addresses manually in my address book. That is a
bit of a nuisance.
To keep pine's address book up to date is easier and less prone to
errors than mutt's aliases because you can do it from a menu and pine
handles all the syntax issues.
When forwarding a message using pine, the attachments are included.
That is not the case with mutt. Maybe it is something that can be
configured. To fine tune mutt takes a lot of time.
Something I enjoy about mutt which pine do not provide is the ability
to search the contents of all the messages in a mailbox for a string.
Another feature of mutt which I could not figure out with pine is the
ability to check different mailboxes for new mail.
After using mutt for about a year now I enjoy it, but still miss some
of pine's abilities.
Johann
--
J.H. Spies - Tel. 082 782 0336 / 023 55 11 568
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call
his name JESUS; for he shall save his people from
their sins." Matthew 1:21
