I realize this isn't an answer to Vegard Svanberg's original question, but I think it's a point worth raising: isn't the fact that mutt is text-based a security feature?
Thunderbird, which I consider the second-best e-mail client, does have security settings to prevent it from automatically loading certain content that might contain exploits. But it seems to me that mutt does it one better by, for example, forcing users to take extra steps to click on hyperlinks, which is a bit of extra defense against spear phishing. Indeed, by seeing the raw HTML you can avoid a malicious hyperlink that doesn't match the link text displayed. Obviously all of this is not a panacea, and no doubt you can still be harmed by opening a malware attachment in mutt. But am I wrong to think that these things that seem to be a hassle are actually good for us? Best regards, Greg Marks
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
