On 2012-12-01, Rado Q <l%...@gmx.de> wrote: >=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 8:38:57 +0000 -= > >> Long lines != the end of the world. Simple as that. > > ... _for you_. > But it can mean the beginning of the end for efficient > communication, when everybody starts caring less and less for it by > introducing (and trying to establish) all the other transgressions.
Jamie actually did this list a service. Overly sheltered mutt users have a tendancy to lose touch. Jamie's post actually exposed a mutt characteristic that can be improved. Regardless of which standards a mutt user endorses, a good quality tool is lenient in what it accepts, handles it well, while being strict in what it produces. Yet mutt is not good at handling common deviations from standards and conventions. Mutt would improve if mutt developers received more garbage that could be salvaged into something that's readable. I think this is why mutt's encryption interoperability suffers. Mutt is good with GPG, but it's lousy with S/MIME. While Outlook does S/MIME okay, it does not even recognize a GPG message at all, and Outlook plugins are lousy with GPG. This division between mutt users and users of crappy tools would only be favorable for mutt if mutt were the dominant tool - but it's not.
