On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:43:58PM +0100, Erika Pacholleck wrote:
> [25.02.02 15:39 +0100] Louis-David Mitterrand <-- :
> > This small-specialized-tools-are-better-than-monolithic-apps argument
> > keeps coming back like a mantra. It's so tired now as to seem almost
> > pre-recorded. (Where do you guys get that propaganda anyway?)
>
> This kind of propaganda is unwillingly spread by *all* those products
> which try to put all-in-one. The more it is in, the more you loose if
> a single component does not work.
Oh? Will you fare any better if a _separately_ misonfigured procmail,
fetchmail or postfix starts eating your mail _separately_? Guess what,
if one, only one, of your dear small components start loosing mail the
next small component will never see it anyway ;-)
> > The keyword with mutt is integration: imap and pop are integrated with
> > mutt becauses it makes sense to _browse_ remote imap or pop folders (yes
> > mutt can do that with pop) and save stuff to remote imap folders (try that
> > with fetchmail).
>
> This is a very personal statement. For myself it is economical
> nonsense to waste a lot of money for online browsing if I can
> save the short download on my free disk space (try paying your
> bill from an empty bank account).
It makes a lot of sense to _leave_ your mail on a server you trust and
that has a real backup policy. My mail archive is too valuable to keep
on a workstation, be it a laptop or a PeeCee.
--
PHEDRE: C'est moi qui sur ce fils chaste et respectueux
Osai jeter un oeil profane, incestueux.
(Phèdre, J-B Racine, acte 5, scène 7)
