On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:14:48PM -0800, Eugene Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> :
> :See, now we get to the case of why users are pointed to fetchmail: 
> :Because fetchmail has been bloated, er, I mean, specifically written to
> :understand these buggy servers and try its best to deal with them. 
> :Trying to add this POP3 support to Mutt, you're going to run into the
> :same problems, and probably get buried under user complaints about how
> :things don't work just the way they want them to.
> 
> Here's my two cents on the matter.  I like the fact that Mutt is just a
> MUA, and an excellent MUA at that.  POP3 sucks.  And I'd rather see that
> it remains outside of Mutt.  Keep the bloat down.

For the record, I find "there are too many buggy POP3 servers to support
effectively inside Mutt" a far more persuasive argument than "POP3 sucks
and I'd rather see that it remains outside of Mutt."

It appears that "bloat" is just a short way of saying "features I don't
want."  Maybe we could focus on the technical merits or shortcomings of
suggestions rather than appealing to a vague sense of "bloat."

-- 
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer

Reply via email to