Anders Engstr?m wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 07:55:32AM +0900, Jamis Buck wrote:
> 
>>Carl Youngblood wrote:
>>
>>>Hans Fugal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, well can tell you're not a mutt user. You're apparently comparing 
>>>>gmail with a lame threading mail reader (or perhaps to slashdot or 
>>>>other web forums). I don't blame you for thinking gmail is superior. 
>>>>If you'd like I can send you a screenshot privately. Mutt does all of 
>>>>the things you mentioned - sorts threads and subthreads 
>>>>chronologically by last post, easy to see the overall tree and you 
>>>>only read one message at a time, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, I was actually thinking about Thunderbird.  I still haven't made 
>>>the leap to pure text-based email reading.
>>
>>For what it's worth, I tried mutt, once. I ran, screaming. 
>>(Metaphorically speaking.)
>>
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>Also, I pop all my mail, and I haven't had the time to sit down and 
>>figure out how to get that to work with mutt.
>>
> 
> 
> Well - Mutt isn't really the tool you should use to fetch mail. Mutt is
> by definition a Mail Reader Agent. I'd advise you to use fetchmail for
> fetching the mail, and procmail for sorting the mail. And Mutt for
> reading the mail.

Yah, that's what I remember reading. But why should I bother 
learning/installing/configuring fetchmail and procmail AND mutt, when I 
could simply use Thunderbird and have it work with minimal configuration?

(That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know it has to do with 
choice, and the ability to use the tools that suit you best, but I'm not 
really interested in discussions of the Unix and GNU philosophies, many 
of which I don't agree with anyway. But that's an entirely different 
subject. :-D)

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3 / email.byu.edu
http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis