[geeks] Apple software: the stuff you "gotta have"
mparson at bl.org
Thu Oct 11 22:02:30 CDT 2007
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:16:42PM -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Michael Parson wrote:
>> I still do most of my mail with nmh. I read list-mail with mutt to
>> get threading, but even after about 5 years of it, my fingers are
> The threading of mutt is what I miss the most. It's excellent.
It is the primary feature that got me using it. Plus the fact that it
properly deals with my mh folders and sequences.
> I used MH for many years, back when I used to write programs to do
> everything. It was an amazing system, but didn't age well for what I
> tend to do.
It's held up for my uses. Plus, I'm way too lazy to migrate my nmh
folders to something else. If I ever do move off nmh, I'll probably
just archive what I've got and start fresh.
>> mostly trained at doing things in pine (which I used before switching
> I never liked Pine, and don't understand the appeal, though I did use
> it for some time at work in 1996-1998. It can be very efficient, but
> mutt for me was a lot faster.
I switched from elm to pine when I started needing to support MIME
capable mailers (this was before my users had SLIP or PPP, everything
was done with terminal dial-ups to UNIX and VAX accounts). Once I
turned on enough features, I found it to be rather usable. It wasn't
till later that someone turned me on to mh and exmh.
>> (n)mh about 12 years ago) better than mutt. I detest trading email
>> with people on yahoo and hotmail, all that grotesque formatting and
> I generally don't like web mail or web forums. The latter really
> sucks for any kind of complex discussion, and the inability to archive
> postings and use them for reference is a major downer.
I refuse to post in most of them. I can barely read the few that I do
have to when looking for information.
>> I'm sure there is a setting on their end to force plain-text email,
>> at least, I'd hope there is a setting to do that, but the default
>> sends me a lot of crap that I have to weed through to read the
> It's pretty rare anyone using web mail has much I need to read,
Well, I have a few friends and family that still insist on using hotmail
and yahoo, nothing I can do to get them off other than offer them free
access to my systems and I'm kinda tired of supporting the users I
>>> Do you mean that you connect to a Mac using a virtual screen program
>>> such as VNC and run Maill.app that way, or does it have a CLI
>> I imagine he means doing dial-up from the mac and comparing running
>> Mutt on the Mac with runnign Mail.app on the Mac?
> I think he means using it for imap. Apple's Mail is *very* efficient
> with IMAP. It puts less load on my imap server than almost any other
I've never really looked into that aspect of it.
> Evolution nearly kills it, and Thunderbird isn't great. mutt is OK,
> but only because it only loads one group at a time. Over the long
> run, mutt is horribly inefficient.
>> Evolution is a graphical mail program for Linux (does it compile
>> on other platforms yet?). It has a plugin from Novell that lets
>> you read your mail on an Exchange server, it uses the same xml/html
>> interface that the Outlook Web Access uses.
> It's one of the worst written and designed programs I've ever seen.
Other than the rest of the gnome system...
> It's like they wanted to take Outlook, and make something even worse
> based on it.
I never really understood the appeal of Outlook in the first place.
mparson at bl.org
More information about the geeks