Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org>: > This is nonsense. There have been many discussions on this list > about possible improvements, covering a wide range of functional and > UI areas. The 1.6 release is supposedly waiting on some of those... > and has been for a very long time now. And THAT completely ignores > the idea that Mutt's design is over 15 years old, and its design > philosophy is much, much older. Mutt, and its user base (or at least > a substantial segment of it), could certainly benefit from being > brought into this century.
I'm just a user, not a dev. But you might have heard my name before.
I'm open to improvements in the UI. There are some seriously annoying
misfeatures near PGP/GPG key management that could stand to be fixed.
One in particular gets me every time - if you try to PGP-encrypt
outgoing mail, but no key in your list matches, it is pure hell trying
to abort the key-selection mode.
But the hairs on the back of my neck rise when I hear criticism
premised on mutt's design philosophy being "old" or talk of being
"brought into this century". I use mutt precisely because it *isn't* a
"modern" mail user agent, and I want it to stay usefully archaic, thank
you.
When I hear talk of updating mutt's design philosophy, what I fear it
might mean is morphing a useful tool into yet another glossy, meretricious,
overcomplicated third-rate imitation of Microsoft Outlook. Don't do
that, please.
I think mutt could stand to *lose* some features, actually.
Built-in IMAP and POP fetching is inferior to watching a queue
collected by fetchmail, which is better at the transport end.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
