On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 10:19:51PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > <diplomatic mode> I have a slightly adverse general opinion about the mail > client called 'mutt'. I am not saying that this is the fault of its devs nor > do I suggesst that there is anything wrong with its users. </diplomatic mode> > > Pine is slightly less gruesome.. Old kmail rocked. It even did well with > threads where the thread id was mangled - threading by subject was an option. > Haven't looked into the options with the kmail beta I am using at the moment. > I am glad that it is more or less stable. >
Pine is nowhere near being an acceptable mutt replacement, it just isn't powerful or versatile enough. It's been a few years, but I did test a *lot* of MUAs. What the mutt devs say is true: all MUAs suck, but mutt sucks the least. Every single GUI MUA I ever tried would lock up and become unresponsive at times when dealing with IMAP. It happens in mutt as well, but pretty rarely and mutt can be killed and started fresh in an instant, unlike many others. My experiences with evolution, kmail, thunderbird, and opera were dreadful! Sylpheed (claws-mail, or whatever they call it now) was pretty acceptable, and I used that for quite awhile before switching to mutt. -- caveat utilitor ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
