Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mutt 1.6

mutt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 191 posts

Re: Mutt 1.6

#61

Post by kingmanaz »

jd3 wrote: post #26
nextos wrote: post #3

I use it daily. It's a lovely email client. Close to the Unix ideal of doing one thing, and doing it well. Integration with other utilities (notmuch, isync) for indexing and sync'ing is very easy, thanks to close adherence to Unix principles, and gets you a very neat setup. Nothing to envy from Gmail.

the UNIX philosophy died with the advent of the web imo. The emacs editor/Mozilla suite (SeaMonkey) mentality of doing most things and doing them relatively well is the reality we have inherited.

The UNIX philosophy is still alive and kicking and just a terminal away courtesy of SDF.org.

Re: Mutt 1.6

#62

Post by Kadin »

kingmanaz wrote: post #61
jd3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the UNIX philosophy died with the advent of the web imo. The emacs editor/Mozilla suite (SeaMonkey) mentality of doing most things and doing them relatively well is the reality we have inherited.

The UNIX philosophy is still alive and kicking and just a terminal away courtesy of SDF.org.

Love SDF. (Of course, I run bash and Emacs on it, which will probably earn me a slightly-warmer spot in Hell someday than if I used ksh and vi like God intended.)

Re: Mutt 1.6

#63

Post by Fogest »

wodenokoto wrote: post #31
profeta wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> search amazing in gmail. really? until a few months ago, you couldn't find anything besides whole words with textual search on gmail. why do people have it's search at such high standards? how bad was the alternative you had?

What are you talking about? What have you've been missing? Senders name or email? That has always been an option. Has attachments? Been an option since forever. tags? Since forever. date? Available since forever.

It's cool to hate on Google though I thought?

But seriously, all these hard core unix fans seem a little odd here. Gmail search has always been powerful, and is even more powerful now. It sounds like a case of user error if it isn't working for someone.

Re: Mutt 1.6

#64

Post by dfc »

Does anyone use Mutt with SMIME and GPG? Do you like it? I need a mailer with SMIME support for work. I am currently using thunderbird and would love an alternative.

Re: Mutt 1.6

#65

Post by izacus »

duskwuff wrote: post #49
jd3 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ISPs blocking SMTP is this actually still a thing? I know on our campus network they block SMTP on the wired network, but not on the wireless (for some boneheaded reason or another).

All sane residential ISPs block port 25 (SMTP) to prevent spam. All sane mail providers offer SUBMISSION (same protocol as SMTP) on port 587, which is intentionally not blocked by ISPs.

Residental ISPs where? I've yet to see one here in EU O.o

Re: Mutt 1.6

#66

Post by adrusi »

norswap wrote: post #33
nextos wrote: post #3

I use it daily. It's a lovely email client. Close to the Unix ideal of doing one thing, and doing it well. Integration with other utilities (notmuch, isync) for indexing and sync'ing is very easy, thanks to close adherence to Unix principles, and gets you a very neat setup. Nothing to envy from Gmail.

I personally always felt that "full applications" were disconnected from the Unix philosophy. By definition, such an application does many things: fetch things from the network, display them, sort them, ... it talks many protocols, concerns itself with many I/O systems. I'm certainly not saying that it is the way to go, but a real Unix philosophy way of dealing with email would be to use a command to pull mails from…

That's what mutt is. You can compile it with support for imap and smtp, and most packaged versions of it are built that way, but the traditional way of using it is just as way of reading and sorting emails. Fetching emails from the server is done by a POP or IMAP agent (I use offlineimap), sending mail is handled by an smtp agent (I use msmtp), composing emails is done with $EDITOR.

I don't think that mutt is the most unix-philosophy-aligned MUA possible, it feels kind of like GNU tools: unixy, but jam packed with too many flags and options and convenience features. The unix philosophy would prefer that the application's design be changed to better accomodate implementing those extra features externally where plausible. But the perfect unix MUA would do the same things as mutt.

Re: Mutt 1.6

#67

Post by nicwest »

rcarmo wrote: post #54

Wow, this takes me back. Like someone else posted here, to around 2007 or so, which is when it was last updated. Good to have this, although most of what I get these days (work-wise) is HTML-formatted or otherwise challenging from a readability perspective. I fully intend to give this a go against my mail archive (which goes back to '98, and which I currently access via Thunderbird, running inside a VNC server on an…

if you haven't already, have a look at w3m [1] or similar. I use mail cap to route emails though w3m and it's pretty rare that I notice anything amiss.

`text/html; w3m -I %{charset} -T text/html; copiousoutput;`

[1] http://w3m.sourceforge.net/

Re: Mutt 1.6

#68

Post by JadeNB »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #56
nextos wrote: post #3

I use it daily. It's a lovely email client. Close to the Unix ideal of doing one thing, and doing it well. Integration with other utilities (notmuch, isync) for indexing and sync'ing is very easy, thanks to close adherence to Unix principles, and gets you a very neat setup. Nothing to envy from Gmail.

> Close to the Unix ideal of doing one thing, and doing it well. In my opinion this concept does not work for most non-cli programs. How do you actually define this "one thing"? Is "reading an email" one thing? And "writing an email" another thing? What about "spellchecking the email"? What about "managing all my email contacts"? What about "back up my emails"? What about "sign email with GPG"? Do all of these things…

My own idea of the Unix ideal—I don't know how it accords with others'—is that there's nothing wrong with having an umbrella program that brings many pieces together, as long as those pieces are modular.

That is, I have no problem with being able to read, write, spellcheck, and sign an e-mail, manage my contacts, and back up my archive from within a single program; but it had better be true that, if I want to use vi instead of Nano to write my e-mails, then I can force the program to respect this wish.

(As is probably apparent, I'm a Pine user by experience; I've never used Mutt, but would like to give it a try.)

Post reply on HN