31–40 of 160 posts
Another reason is that it spawns a text editor. Typing emails in a text widget without proper editing capabilities can be irritating.
In Firefox, you can use It's All Text! to edit the current text area in a proper editor. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/its-all-text/
The wonderful Nostalgy add-on provides a very responsive keyboard interface.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/nostalgy/
I don't know if current Thunderbird versions include all that, however.
I still use mutt (and default to text), but I don't see anyone else doing this, even in my geek coworkers or friends. So I'm a bit surprised by this article. I use mutt because it's very very fast, and quite customizable (I maintain a kind of 0-inbox through a set of hotkeys, + spamassin + procmail). To handle numerous mailing-lists with medium volume, it's so far the best I've seen. I tried many email clients (on Wi…
The other reason I like mutt is because it still conforms to the UNIX principle: One thing and one thing well. True, you could use mutt for SMTP/IMAP, but there are better tools for that. I use mutt with offlineimap, msmtp and mu (for searching).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use mutt with Exchange servers and Gmail servers
Mutt and Exchange? Bliss! Would you happen to have a doc link handy?
you can send email using external programs (local smtp server and openxchange for exchange).
Mutt is not a traditional mail client, it is more of a glue between multiple programs so you can have one interface for all of your emails need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mutt and Exchange? Bliss! Would you happen to have a doc link handy?
IIRC Exchange does offer IMAP and SMTP...
I'm not sure I buy the reasoning on "surface area", at least not the specific comparisons in the article. It seems unfair to count Chrome but not Unix. For that matter, shouldn't we count the surface area of everything that touches the email as it hops around, including routers, etc? And isn't that the whole problem with email that the protocol does not require secure transport? So, seems like the only way to make th…
Right. "Let's switch from an email client written in a safe high level language that's also running inside multiple sandboxes and which has a full time security team (e.g. gmail) to ...... a mail client written in C" Doesn't seem like a great approach.
Isn't the general premise here that one can choose to package up any program in as many deeply nested (virtual or physical) sandboxes as one would like, but there's an inherent benefit to the piece of software inside all those boxes exposing to one's adversary as few avenues as possible to attempt to escape them (specifically as it pertains to people in the business of painting targets on their backs e.g. Soghoian)?
Put another way, of course Gmail and Chrome have dedicated security teams, but they won't ever have prevent $GIVEN_INFOSEC_RESEARCHER's box from getting owned teams.