Notice that everyone praising Evolution or Kmail used their mailer of choice to compose the message in question, but:
Harald Schmalzbauer: > User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 > Well, even this incredible slow thunderbird was better than evolution IMHO. Scratch one vote for Thunderbird (leaving 0). Sebastian Smoller: > X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 > so i have to install a lot of gnome stuff to be able to use evolution > right ? thats bad :( But not so bad that you haven't done it on your other systems, right? And then there's Parv, suggestor of mutt, whose mail contains no agent/mailer header. IIRC, mutt defaults to adding "X-Mail-Agent: mutt" but I'm sure it can be configured to put anything else, or nothing at all--and I doubt many modern mutt users leave the defaults alone. So I'll assume he's using mutt. To answer Parv's question, why not use mutt? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's because, despite the advertising, mutt is not nearly ELM-like enough--at least not after spending so many years using ELM, much of that over 300 baud connections, so that any deviation throws off my finger-memory. It'd be easier for me to switch to dvorak than mutt. And the fact that more than half the keystrokes are only documented in the manual, outside the software, doesn't help. I really did try, because I realized that otherwise I'd have to go to a graphical MUA or I'd be stuck with elm for life (which means no MIME, no security, no online IMAP...). Eventually, I decided to go to a graphical MUA. And, a few years later, Evolution 1.4 came out, and now I have one I can use happily. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
