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

Mutt email client 25 years old

mutt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#111

Post by bravura »

feanaro wrote: post #70
dancek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great example of the HN use of the word "just".

I'm not sure what you are implying. That it is hard? It is only a single line added to the `mailcap` file: text/html; firefox '%s' &; test=test -n "$DISPLAY"; needsterminal; After that's in place, you simply open attachments (via `view-attachments`) and call `view-attach` (usually via a key binding) on the HTML attachment.

You just used the word “simply” in the same was as you used the word “just”.

The argument GP was making is that what is obvious to one reader may not be obvious to another. So using the words “simply” or “just” or “obviously” does not add information, except to signal that you feel the reader is ignorant if they are not aware of what you’re explaining.

My PhD advisor always crossed these words out of my scientific writing, and I think it was a good change to make.

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#112

Post by Fnoord »

feanaro wrote: post #54
res0nat0r wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love absolutely Mutt if it weren't for everyone in the world using html email. I know you can view or strip html emails down to their essentials, but it doesn't render properly enough where I can reply to everything at work and not look like a fool because I'm missing some context. Too bad because Mutt is amazing.

You can just set up Mutt to open HTML mail in Firefox.

On top of that, you can use Browsh [1] to browse from CLI.

[1] https://www.brow.sh/

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#113

Post by minusf »

ohlookabird wrote: post #59
ninjin wrote: post #9

Thank you Mutt (and also NeoMutt for pushing the envelope), you have been my e-mail client now for the last four years and as an academic that spends a significant amount of time reading and responding to e-mail it is (somehow?) the best option out there. Setup: * Mutt (I had slowdowns with NeoMutt) * Vim with four e-mail specific lines in the `vimrc` * fdm for retrieval and delivery rules * Syncthing for synchronisa…

> tmux to give me a single horizontal split so that I can browse and compose at the same time Do you mind sharing how you do this? Browsing plus composing has been the one thing that keeps annoying me for not being streamlined and typically I just open multiple mutts/neomutts.

if you use tmux, read up on "set background_edit" in mutt. welcome to the 21th century! :D

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#114

Post by upofadown »

ori_b wrote: post #97
res0nat0r wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love absolutely Mutt if it weren't for everyone in the world using html email. I know you can view or strip html emails down to their essentials, but it doesn't render properly enough where I can reply to everything at work and not look like a fool because I'm missing some context. Too bad because Mutt is amazing.

I can't think of a single instance where that happened. Do you have some apps generating broken messages?

I had a case where someone crossed out a word in the HTML version but the client just left the word in for the text version. Slight hilarity ensued.

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#115

Post by minusf »

kashyapc wrote: post #80

Another extremely happy user of the following combination waves hi: • Mutt • OfflineIMAP (to be replaced with `mbsync`; OfflineIMAP is not being ported to Python 3, unfortunately) • Notmuch — for fast indexing, searching, and tagging e-mails • Postfix — Mail Transfer Agent; offline queuing. Overall, it's one of the most robust pieces of software; Postfix never failed even once on me in nearly six years.

mbsync is far superior in resource usage and speed compared to OfflineIMAP, python3 would not help with that.

combined with fdm filtering/sorting/archiving the speed has been incredible.

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#116

Post by upofadown »

feanaro wrote: post #70
dancek wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great example of the HN use of the word "just".

I'm not sure what you are implying. That it is hard? It is only a single line added to the `mailcap` file: text/html; firefox '%s' &; test=test -n "$DISPLAY"; needsterminal; After that's in place, you simply open attachments (via `view-attachments`) and call `view-attach` (usually via a key binding) on the HTML attachment.

You probably don't want to risk the attack surface of a full browser by default. You can use something like this: text/html; lynx -dump %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput

And then map a separate key when you are sure...

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#117

Post by leephillips »

kleiba wrote: post #107
ori_b wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a single instance where that happened. Do you have some apps generating broken messages?

I'm amazed that you haven't had that experience yet. Years ago, when the web was less commonly used, it was pretty much frowned upon to send HTML emails. These days, it's almost the opposite: people asks "what's wrong with you" when you use a text-only email client (setting).

I use mutt, never send html emails; nobody has ever commented on this, in over 20 years.

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#119

Post by leephillips »

upofadown wrote: post #114
ori_b wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a single instance where that happened. Do you have some apps generating broken messages?

I had a case where someone crossed out a word in the HTML version but the client just left the word in for the text version. Slight hilarity ensued.

This will happen for some text-based html renderers if the cross-out was done with CSS. But if it was done with , it should work.

Re: Mutt email client 25 years old

#120

Post by feanaro »

bravura wrote: post #111
feanaro wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you are implying. That it is hard? It is only a single line added to the `mailcap` file: text/html; firefox '%s' &; test=test -n "$DISPLAY"; needsterminal; After that's in place, you simply open attachments (via `view-attachments`) and call `view-attach` (usually via a key binding) on the HTML attachment.

You just used the word “simply” in the same was as you used the word “just”. The argument GP was making is that what is obvious to one reader may not be obvious to another. So using the words “simply” or “just” or “obviously” does not add information, except to signal that you feel the reader is ignorant if they are not aware of what you’re explaining. My PhD advisor always crossed these words out of my scientific wr…

Fair point. It does probably make sense to just strip the words out in this case as well.

I do want to point out that I didn't use those words fully consciously and I most certainly did not mean to imply the reader was ignorant. The only thing those words were signalling is that the action in question does not take much effort (once you know it).

Post reply on HN