On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:44:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> ;-) . Having used Outlook, which seems to be the example people are
> quoting of something that supports this I actually prefer the separate
> instances method. Seamlessness is all very well, but things like
> deciding which account new mail is sent from don't seem to work quite as
> they should.
*cough* I have stated two clients constantly. PMMail and The Bat!.
Outlook has the dubious distiction of having the best IMAP implementation thus
far but i does the same thing as what people who tell me use fetchmail does.
Dumps everything into a single location and has it up to you to figure out.
Same with Pegasus and Eudora. All three are just as unacceptable.
> I guess Evolution might do what you want - it seems aimed fairly
> squarely at being an Outlook clone, although it's obviously not ready
> yet.
Nope, it is unacceptable because it doesn't have separate mail accounts,
just personalities on a single account.
> Thinking about it, you can probably do everything with mutt, apart from
> using different outgoing mail servers (you could probably do that too if
> you could put up with having multiple MTAs or if there's configuration
> options in current versions I don't know about). Hooks and a list of
> inboxes probably handle most things.
I could get a close approximation, yes. In doing so expend 3-4 more times
work to get something "close" to ideal. That is not acceptable in my eyes
from a usability perspective. Mutt is the unix of mail clients. Kick ass
power and flexibility, total lack of simple usability.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
