On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:18:21PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: >> But that's only true as long as the computer doesn't crash > > In general, this is really not a good argument for virtually any case > that affects typical users. It might be a good argument for an > application that is running on hardware that might kill the user if it > breaks (like, say, an X-ray machine, or a dialysis machine), or > something equally critical, but for *E-MAIL*? Just... no. [I will > actually elaborate momentarily.]
I think it's a good argument in this case because I expect to always get a copy of all sent mails. And if I store it before I send it (like it's now) this is true, otherwise it isn't. This is important to me. >> (mutt stores mails in /tmp which is either a tmpfs or emptied on >> reboot). > > False: [snip] I was talking about the defaults. And I don't want a system where the user has to think about this to get safe defaults. >> I admit the current situation is not perfect, but at least I >> won't lose the message no matter what happens once I've pressed >> send. > > False. [snip] That was not my point. My point was that I'll always have a copy of the mail _if_ the mail is sent. Of course the computer can crash at any time, but if it does either I have a copy and the mail was or was not sent, or the mail wasn't sent. > If your computer does crash, and the message got sent, you can just > ask the recipient to forward it to you. As was pointed out in another thread, that's only true if the mail was correctly delivered. And still if it was, that's not the situation I'd like to be in when using mutt. Regards Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using gnupg http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
