On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 02:53:44PM -0500, Logan Rathbone 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?
How so? > 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. Uh huh... That's completely preposterous. > 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. Mutt 1.4 is ancient. It worked about as well as anything did with IMAP circa 2000... IMAP has seen numerous improvements since then, and in order to benefit from them you MUST use the 1.5 tree. Mutt's core IMAP functionality also improved greatly in the 1.5 tree. So if you're using 1.4, well, that's kind of retarded (literally)... Mutt 1.5 is about 9 years old... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpMiF1KnREZq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
