Tim: >> I use different terminals around the place. That's why I went for >> IMAP. Derek Martin: > Huh? I use different terminals around here. One in this room, one in that, using the mail clients available on them. Hence using IMAP with the mail is an advantage. >> I'd like a better client, anyway. It leaves a lot to be desired in a >> few areas (messy quoting that needs manual intervention, difficulty >> in only polling one server out of many for your mail, etc.). > Mutt + vim or is the way to go! =8^) No thanks. That just adds painful use on top of limited functionality. >> No, Thunderbird doesn't cut it. It has the added disadvantage that >> interprets the messages, HTMLising even plain text, as far as the >> display is concerned. > How could it "HTML"-ize plain text? If there's nothing in the plain > text for it to use as HTML, what is it doing? For instance, this message has two generations of quoted conversations, indicated by ">" prefix marks. It doesn't show them as it, it converts them to "|", colourises things, and treats the content as if it had been an HTML e-mail (you can notice various changes to its interpretations of plain text, instead of just showing it as-is, that behave in that manner). That's not a good idea for any mail client where you want to show code snippets, etc. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
