> No, I mean exactly what an MUA says it is. Mutt is an MUA but, to me, it > is not a mail client. A mail client is able to transfer and manipulate the > required data without need of other programs. A constant example I give, > which is flawed as all are, is web browsing. A web browser is, for the most > part, an HTTP client. We have the HTTP server and the HTTP client talking to > one another directly. We don't have an HTTP transport agent to get the data > to the HTTP user agent. Again, example, it is flawed, but it gets the basic > point across.
<huge snip> It may interest you to know that there are many different ways to skin a cat. Clearly none of the ways currently available suit you 100% (or even 60%). However, it may interest you to know that in general, the modularization and breakdown of processes into many separate methods is generally thought to be A Good Thing. It is because of this that we have (for example) Micro Kernels. You may be further interested to know that under RISC OS, the entire web-browsing mechanics are as broken down as email is under Linux - you literally do have to have around 3-4 different processes running, which all communicate with each other to get the job done. This level of modularization offers far more power and flexibility, as it becomes easier to implement new features and capabilities (as the amount of code that has to be re-implemented from application to application is greatly reduced). I am far happier using a console mode MUA under Linux than I am using Outlook Express because I have far more 'nitty-gritty' control over what is going on. I may remind you that Linux is first and foremost a server OS. It is also a programmer's OS. As such, people who are not prepared to while away hundreds of hours reading man pages and docs and do not have an almost fundamental understanding of the OS are not going to find Linux a rewarding experience. Therefore, the attitude is, and will remain to be for some time, 'if it doesn't do what you want, make it do it yourself'. Matthew
