What OS & mail client do -you- use?

Mon Oct 27 21:21:48 PST 2003

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 08:49:15AM -0800, richard childers / kg6hac wrote:
> What OS & mail client do -you- use?

 Mutt 1.5.4i (2003-03-19) under Screen version 4.00.01 (FAU) 18-Sep-03
 under Debian GNU/Linux x86.  Mail gets to me via fetchmail release
 6.2.4+NTLM+SDPS+SSL+NLS (over SSL) through procmail v3.22 2001/09/10
 and SpamAssassin version 2.60.  That's all on the client side.

 The server is running Debian GNU/Linux x86, and ipopd-ssl (4:2001adebian-6)
 as the mail storage agent and Postfix 1.1.11-0.woody as the MTA.

 I generally access my screen session through an xterm (either local 
 to that system, or via ssh (OpenSSH_3.6.1p2 Debian 1:3.6.1p2-9) from
 a nearby KNOPPIX machine, or re-attached from any handy (trustworthy?)
 system.

 (I use the term "trustworthy" with considerable trepidation on a list
 like this :) -- in this case it mostly means from systems that are
 controlled by people who could come into my house and pysically access
 those systems, or client systems that I installed and have maintained
 myself.  Even at that I recognize the inherent risks of such remote
 access; so I do think twice when I do it).

> To the degree that this is an issue faced by the entire community, and 
> to the degree that we are the experts to whom others look for answers, 
> perhaps we should be answering this question, instead of quibbling about it.

> Having perused the rants and raves on this topic, I'd be interested in 
> knowing who uses what, and why.

 I use my collection of tools because they suit me.  I changed from
 elm to MH, then to mh-e (under xemacs --- which was also run under
 screen), then to mutt.  My old elm folders were incorporated (using the
 MH inc command) into MH folders years ago.  Thus they remained usable
 under mh-e; and under mutt.  

 I used to use glimpse to index my mail folders (and search it, of 
 course).  However glimpse has not been maintained (at least no free
 version that I know of) and I rarely need to search the older archives.

 My mail folders have been maintained in this way for about 9 years.
 Obviously the whole system is the result of years of evolution.  I
 rarely mess with it; adding spam assassin only about two months ago,
 switching to ipopd-ssl only six months ago (using unencrypted POP
 over the house LAN and ssh tunnels from remote before then).  mutt
 was about three years ago, mh-e was six or seven.  procmail has always
 been used as the LDA. Postfix replaced sendmail a few years ago as
 well.  The folders (and my entire home directory tree) have been
 transplanted several times over the years (rsync over ssh from the
 old machine or hard drive to its replacement).  It's sporadically
 backed up via rsync and occasionally (portions) to CDR.

 It currently represents: 136668 messages in 105 folders (plus some
 miscellany that's migrated into mbox format or still archived there
 in).  That's 948MB of archives over the last 9 years.

> However, to cut to the chase, it seems like a no-win situation at this 
> point in history; it's not clear to me that there is any one client that 
> will make everyone happy.

 It is abundantly clear that no one mail user agent, editor or other
 non-trivial tool will satisfy all users.  To paraphrase Emerson:
 foolish standardization is the hobgoblin of little minds. (*)

> For a long time I used /usr/ucb/mail. I never used the folder option, 
> but I modified my .mailrc extensively and maintained it over a ten year 
> span or so, with occasional reliance on /usr/bin/mail.

> More recently I've been using Netscape's products. Netscape's products 
> are available across many platforms and for that reason are attractive 
> to me, as a heterogeneous, bleeding edge kind of guy.

 I demand a curses capable interface and like to be able to back off
 gracefully even to a tty if need be.  Thus GUIs are out.  I also just
 don't like them for primarily textual information.

> It's not possible at this point in time to conduct business with the 
> world at large without having access to a Microsoft platform, with which 
> to compose and review documents in the traditionally accepted rich text 
> format of the late 20th century, which is Microsoft Word ... not, that 
> is, unless one insists on only doing business with zealots of a similar 
> stripe, that is.

 I don't maintain access to any MS Windows based OS.  I've got a copy
 of Win '95 under VMWare on my lap top that has run less then 10 times
 in the last three years; and not at all in the last year. 

 I suppose either doing the impossible or I'm not conducting business
 except with "zealots" (or perhaps your premise is flawed).

> There are alternatives, of course. Rich Text Format, or RTF. HTML, 
> although it has been getting stretched out of shape, lately, and is no 
> longer merely a hypertext-enabled markup language, is another Open Standard.

> Most recruiters and contracting firms will accept any one of these three 
> formats - RTF, HTML, or MS Word's proprietary '.doc' format (which, I 
> think, was originally based on RTF).

 I still provide them with text and a link to the HTML and PDF versions
 of my resume (which is maintain in LaTeX).

> It would be nice to have close integration between the mail and web 
> clients, just in case someone sent me a URL. I might have seen an 
> implementation of mutt(1) that did this, but that may be the only case 
> where a text-based mail client and GUI-based web client were tightly 
> integrated that I know of.

 elm and pine allow one to pipe a message into an arbitrary filter.
 Scripts like "urls" and "urlview" used to be commonly available to
 function as a filter, parse for URLs and offer a selection menu in
 Lynx.  It would be trivial to update these to call on the browser of
 one's choice, including the -remote options of Netscape/Mozilla.

 Naturally my copy of mutt gives me quick access to w3m.

> I recall, during this period, seeing a lot of inline HTML in the 
> messages I was receiving, and having come to the conclusion that, just 
> perhaps, command-line mail clients would soon be a thing of the past ... 
> useful for diagnosing problems and automating log delivery, but not 
> something that people would choose to use, in most circumstances.

 I'll stay in the "zealot" category if that's your view.

> I put a lot of thought into this. It was at this time that I started 
> thinking about the implications of font availability. And the fact is 
> that everyone else in the world is using a 16-bit font except for here 
> in the  States. Every one of those special characters - umlauts, tildes, 
> accent grave, etc - are based on either extensions to the 8-bit ASCII 
> standard, or a 16-bit standard.

> One such standard is UniCode. UniCode is supported by FreeBSD and most 
> other operating systems, and applications, today.

 Support for international characters sets is orthogonal to HTML.

> If one considers inline HTML, and 16-bit character sets, as equally 
> obnoxious, visually speaking - as viewed through the filter imposed by 
> the use of a baroque mail client that relies upon all messages 
> containing only messages composed of American 7-bit ASCII characters - 
> then, it seemed to me, the future was obnoxious.

> If, on the other hand, one bowed gracefully to the inevitable, and began 
> evaluating GUI-based mail clients that handled multilingual 
> communications properly, instead of rejecting information as garbage, 
> then the future was less problematic.

 I consider egregious use of these to be obnoxious.

> I'm still concerned about cross-platform availability, portability of 
> the data, and compliance of the mail client with existing mail directory 
> standards.

> I've been looking into Opera recently; I understand it has a mail 
> client, as well.

> Eudora is also attractive for its support of encryption, however, it is 
> not, to the best of my knowledge, an Open Source product any more.

> What is your experience?

 I don't believe it was ever "open source."  I seem to recall that
 Eudora was shareware or freely distributable and usable, but thta the
 sources were not provided.  However, I've never used it.

> PS: It's interesting to consider the explosion of spam in the past few 
> years in a military context; has it ever been considered by anyone that 
> this is actually a subtle attack on the United States' citizens' ability 
> to communicate with one another, and a deliberate attempt to sow seeds 
> of mistrust ... incidentally, crippling the ability of citizens to 
> quickly communicate and organize themselves?

> Do you know -anyone- who would buy most of the crap you see being 
> supposedly sold?

 While I do compare spam to a "DDoS" (distributed denial of service)
 it is far more plausible to attribute it to widespread personal greed
 and rapaciously short-sighted self-interest than to imagine a
 deliberate, co-ordinated conspiracy.

 So it is with most conspiracy theories.  Occam's razor simply suggests
 that we'd be wasting our time looking for the Illuminati behind them.

> (Note comments below regarding 'disabling and crippling support'; if a 
> hypothetical enemy of the state were actually bringing about this state 
> of affairs for their own reasons, they couldn't ask for better 
> cooperation from the citizens then they are getting, today.)

>>>If you folks are having trouble reading messages that incorporate
>>>HTML, why not use a client that recognizes HTML instead of living in
>>>the 19th century?

 When I read this earlier in this thread my visceral reaction was:

 	Fuck you, Childers!

 ... I still feel that way. You have alot of gall casting aspersions
 about our "backwardness" (and public impugning the competence and
 integrity of member of our board) in response to a policy that you
 don't like.

 I prefer for the board to manage the list almost exactly as they have.
 It's their right.  Their reasons suit me just fine and I see a
 consensus that the rest of the membership has either agreed with them
 or abstained by their silence.  

 I'm actually mildly ashamed of myself for even getting drawn into
 this thread again and should really delete all follow-ups to it
 unread.  However, my fascination and even my irritation with it, while
 morbid is not wholly unhealthy.

 * (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
    little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a
    great soul has simply nothing to do.  --- Ralph Waldo Emerson,
	"Self Reliance", 1841 http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm )

   [I actually read this essay online while writing this.  In the context 
   of this quote he seems to be suggestion that it is foolish to persist 
   in a set of beliefs, behaviors or opinions purely to avoid self-
   contradiction --- or contradiction with established authorities.  He's 
   echoing Shakespeare's pithier sentiments "To thine ownself be true"
   The paragraph that starts with this epigram ends with one that is 
   almost as well known: "To be great is to be misunderstood."  The
   writing is noticeably archaic and stilted; and there were a few
   references I had to look up; such as Andes and Himmaleh (a odd
   being a spelling of Himalaya; thus a metaphor to formidible
   challenges), Alexandrian stanza --- a particular form of
   iambic hexameter, and "thunder in Chatham's voice" --- which I
   believe is an oblique reference Thomas Payne; who was born in
   Chatham, Ontario.  Makes me feel ignorant --- but reaffirms my
   fondness Google!]. 

-- 
Jim Dennis