=- Tony's unattended mail wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 10:41:11 +0000 -= > 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.
a) improving mutt is good: go ahead. b) this doesn't mean users should deteriorate in their awareness, consciousness and consideration. > 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. see a). > 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. No, thanks, we had enough of it. Currently the coders/requesters ration is close to 0. It's not like "more catchup" stuff is being denied, there is no code. Provide it, then see. If still unhappy... > 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. This appears to me like the "Uncertainty principle": dominance doesn't relate well to "not crappy". The masses don't go for quality but lazyness. Sad, even depressing, but that's how it goes. If there are exceptions, they are _very_ rare. =- Tony's unattended mail wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 10:46:32 +0000 -= > Hold on.. regardless of etiquette, you exposed a mutt weakness, and > caused an appropriately large spotlight on the matter. Hopefully mutt > developers will be influenced to continue improving mutt. See a): _you_ _are_ the developer. > As mutt users become increasingly surrounded by garbage, isolation is > not practical. ... must think about it a bit before answering this... -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
