Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Why Use anything else' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Why Use anything else
Authored by: sonnyjz on May 21, '04 04:06:34PM

I love pine and mutt, use them still on a few mail servers. Outside of the host-based mail clients why would you use anything else other than mail.app ?

---
- Sonny Zambrana
http://wontstop.com



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why? Speed
Authored by: vital on May 22, '04 04:18:05AM

I can search for a message in roughly 1/10th of the time it takes Mail.app to find it. I can switch folder full of messages (literally 1000's of them) almost instantly. I can quickly access multiple mailservers and retrieve my mail with out grinding things to a halt and then filter them all quickly.

I don't need HTML/rtf messages. Email wasn't really designed for that anyway. I deal with a large volume of email daily [100-120 message, not counting SPAM], that I need to be able to read and respond to, and I need to be able to store and search for them.

It boils down to speed for me. Different people may have different needs, but I really don't believe that Mail.app is a solution for every email need that people have.

--V



[ Reply to This | # ]
Why? Speed
Authored by: swedentom on May 24, '04 12:36:57PM
I can switch folder full of messages (literally 1000's of them) almost instantly.
I have a folder with 11000+ messages. Switching to that folder takes less than a second, so I wouldn't say that Mail.app is that slow. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]
Why Use anything else
Authored by: thochman on May 22, '04 07:12:52PM

Why? O Mutt, how I love thee, let me count the reasons why...

  • Speed
  • Remote accessibility via SSH
  • Customization (key bindings, macros)
  • Simple integration with procmail, and hence other e-mail tools like spam filters
  • Geek factor :)

Sure, Mutt isn't as pretty as Mail.app, and I like to use OS X apps wherever possible. But the reasons listed above are the main reasons I've chosen to use Mutt instead. The only real drawback is lack of support for HTML mail.. However, that is easily fixed with a simple key binding to pass the e-mail to Safari. And I get very few legitimate HTML messages anyway. :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: sjk on May 22, '04 07:59:09PM

I might be using mutt if its IMAP support were more complete. I've primarily used Mulberry for several years now, first on Solaris and on OS X since late 2001. The mulberry-discuss list is an excellent resource, full of helpful, interesting, insightful topics.

Right now my ideal e-mail program would be a combination of features and interface from Mulberry, Apple Mail, Gmail (beta), and mutt.

FastMail is my favorite ESP.



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: babbage on Jun 02, '04 02:28:30PM
Right now my ideal e-mail program would be a combination of features and interface from Mulberry, Apple Mail, Gmail (beta), and mutt.

In other words, your ideal e-mail program is Pine.

And yes, I agree, it's wonderful :-)

---
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

mutt, et.al.
Authored by: sjk on Jun 02, '04 10:31:24PM

Pine's UI leaves much to be desired. AFAIK keybindings still can't be cutomized. And when I tried v3.x it felt too "modal". Hard to imagine anyone who's used mutt extensively being able to tolerate Pine's "rigid" interface.

Forgot to include MM (great command line MUA on TOPS-20; Columbia University wrote a UNIX version) and MH in my list. And Emacs-based VM. :-)



[ Reply to This | # ]
mutt, et.al.
Authored by: babbage on Jun 03, '04 09:56:45AM

You mention Pine's lack of keybinding flexibility as if that's a bad thing, but really, why would that be a good thing? I don't want a mystery meat UI; I want clear, consistent behavior and preferably would prefer to have good documentation for that behavior. Pine's keybindings -- much of which is inherited from Emacs -- are clear, well thought out & documented, and predictable. I have better things to do with my time than try to come up with a different set, ya know? :-)

And Pine 3.x is ancient history by now. The program had already reached 4.00 by 1998, and as of last month is on 4.60. If you're going to compare to Mutt, then be consistent: Mutt didn't even exist until the end of 1998. Moreover, Mutt has been updated four times in the past two years, while Pine has had nine releases that brought it from 4.44 to 4.60 (with big changes at 4.5x & 4.6x) in the same span of time.

It would appear that the Mutt users are two wrapped up in coming up with new keybindings to make much useful progress with their software, eh? :-)

Really though, Mutt has the reputation as the "flexible" mail client while Pine is perceived to be the "training wheels" one, but having spent time using both, it seems to me that Pine is at least as flexible in any ways that count (better IMAP support, etc) and is far less confusing to use. I've seen little if anything that a Mutt user could do that couldn't be done in nearly as few keystrokes in Pine (not counting cheating like binding a series of commands to one keystroke, which Pine obviously doesn't allow), to the point that the practical differences between the two are negligible, and the clearer, more consistent UI in Pine becomes a real advantage -- at least to me.

In any case, the only obvious thing is that they're both better than nearly any GUI mail client. Talk about training wheels! Sheesh! :-)

---
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

mutt, et.al.
Authored by: ilchymis on Dec 29, '04 08:32:14PM

I like Pine and I use it when I have to deal with remote IMAP boxes. However, its inability to deal with Maildir boxes means I won't be using it as my primary user agent, at least for now. (Or at least I don't think that it can do Maildir, as much as I've tried... correct me if I'm wrong.)

I've always seen mbox as a very fragile format; I'm much more comfortable keeping my important mail in a Maildir folder, regardless of the (mild) performance loss associated with the format. So, it's Mutt for me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
HTML mail in mutt
Authored by: Moofisto on May 26, '04 08:09:27AM
oooooh...actually you can use mutt's MIME autoview to show rendered HTML inline.

links provides the rendering. It's colorful and pretty. I'm also set up to have HTML display in my default GUI browser, though I realize that I rarely used that. Reading it layed out in Terminal was enough. I used to use mutt a lot more, now that we have Thunderbird and Mail.app has gotten better, I still use it for local mail.

I based what I did on Gary Johnson's work, and modded it for OS X. Replaced w3m with links, and modified his mutt_netscape script to use the default browser. Made handlers for image attachments to go to GraphicConverter, and that sort of thing. mutt is fun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

re: Why Use anything else?
Authored by: acurrie on Jun 03, '04 07:54:10PM

I stopped using Apple Mail after it corrupted some of my mailboxes. I had moved over to Mail after my Entourage mail database got similarly corrupted. Now I'm back on Eudora, and will never switch again!



[ Reply to This | # ]
re: Why Use anything else?
Authored by: shavenyak on Dec 29, '04 08:45:24PM

What happens if Eudora corrupts your mail? :P



[ Reply to This | # ]