On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:53:44PM -0500, Logan Rathbone wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 08:32:25PM +0100, Joost Kremers wrote: > Personally I prefer to use the right tool for the right job. > Thunderbird is a much better IMAP client than Mutt, so why not use > Thunderbird?
well, if you ask me personally, for various reasons. the fact that it's a text-mode mail client is a large part of it. for me, mutt's IMAP capabilities are good enough. i don't even want a unified inbox... > > mutt is really a one-mail-account kind of mail client. while there are ways > > to > > use it with multiple mail accounts (i use screen with multiple mutt > > instances, > > for example), it's not really as convenient as e.g. thunderbird makes it. > > I disagree; I think Mutt is more of a 'read mail from file' kind of mail > client. This whole concept of Mutt's directly accessing either the POP3 > or IMAP protocol is a relatively new feature to the client and Mutt > really wasn't originally designed to work that way. dunno, the oldest entry in the changelog for 1.4 (from 1998, apparently before mutt's first beta release) at http://www.mutt.org/doc/ChangeLog refers to IMAP. > I really don't care for some of the features they've added into 1.5.x, > but I can see why some might see the features as attractive. I tried to > use Mutt as an IMAP client for awhile, but I threw away that approach > because I realized rather quickly that while Mutt may tolerate being > used in that way, it doesn't *want* to. if that were the case, then why would there be IMAP support in mutt at all? it's true that mutt seems to have a strong bias toward reading mail from local files, but it has IMAP support. (and it seems certainly better than what other text-mode mailers offer, including emacs-based ones.) -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments
