At 07:45 PM 10/12/2006, you wrote: >>I have no idea who ever thought that HTML content in an email is a good >>idea except for working hyperlinks, which I think are nice when working >>on a GUI desktop. > >HTML::Strip takes care of that for me ;) There's absolutely nothing inside >the HTML that can't be conveyed as plain text just as easily. > >"I prefer my webpages on port 80, not port 25... thanks!" LOL! >>Saves copying and pasting and thus work. > >And introduces referer tracking, cookie sniffing, phishing and other fun >things. I never click urls in email on any platform or client. Possibly, but so does any hyperlink on a website. So unless you never click on a hyperlink it pretty much comes down to the same. BUT, Eudora shows the href target in the status bar, so I can hover over the link and see that the link to eBay really goes to www.screwju.cn. No matter how smart an application is, it cannot address user stupidity entirely. I'm way past the "uh, kewl, a link...click" stage. >>Also, I received once in a while infected emails and due to Eudora' >>inability to handle this the evil payload never had a chance and got >>gobbled up by the RTVS. > >MailScanner takes care of that for me, by de-fanging forged emails and >breaking phishing links and other nice-to-have features. I really like how >well it works. > >>Is Eudora the dream MUA? Defenitely not, there is still room for improvement. > >pine! Well, some bright minds invented the graphical desktop and the mouse about , well, 30 years ago and as much as some people try to convince me otherwise, I don't see any reason to make myself miserable using a CLI exclusively. With that attitude most of us would be stuck with MSDOS 27.45SP7 feeling the urge to get hold of the latest Norton Commander. Do I ever use the command line? Sure I do, when I see it fit. >Seriously though... does it have a text mode? How does it store its mail? >Can it be accessed with another text-mode client (mutt, elm, pine)? I >frequently find myself accessing mail over ssh, and GUI clients.. while >purty and flashy, aren't very useful if they don't allow storage in a >standards-compliant format (mbox, mbx, maildir). Looks pretty much texty to me. It can do some barebones HTML stuff, but a) I'm not using that and B) I turned that off for outgoing mail. I don't email myself that often,. so I just assume that my emails aren't laced with HTML. Or do you mean if I can access my mail from the command line? If yes, I have no clue as I don't open a DOS (console) box to access my email. >>And what I reallly hope will happen is that I can use the same set of >>mailbox files on a dual boot machine, which shouldn't be a big problem >>since the mailbox files are 99% identical to standard *nix boxes. > >Is that mbox or mbx? mbx is of course dramatically faster than mbox.. but >either would work perfectly. I've migrated most of my mail to maildir at >this point, and use a local IMAP server to read and access it. I have too >much archived mail to trust to wacky proprietary formats or conversions >every time I switch my MUA. It is mbx and I did try accessing a copy of my mailboxes on Linux with KMail some time ago and it did open it fine with the exception that it did not interpret the read flag, which made all my messages from the past years marked as unread. It is indeed speedy assuming that I have over 2000 messages (over 10 MB) in my main inbox. Searches, sorts, filters and what else is really a matter of a few seconds if that. And this PC here (dual P2-333 with 512MB) isn't what I call fast (but it is darn stable even with a Windope system). >>Now that I've outed myself as Eudora fan I am waiting for the flames to >>come in. ;) > >I'll have to recommend it to "the grandmothers" on our side and see if >they take to it. My mother finally switched to a Mac, after having to have >her machine wiped and reinstalled because it had been hijacked so many >times. My mother-in-law just got herself a shiny new Dell and broadband, >after years of Win95 on a Gateway over dialup. Thanks, just over 33 and ppl call me grandma! ;) And quite honestly, what else other than the multimedia stuff and USB can modern systems do that W95 can't. I mean in regards to functionality, not security. If it has to be Windope my choice remains W2k. All the XP and Vista garbage lets me do less and uses quite more drive space for absolutely no reason. And yes, I know, a nicely loaded Linux system still takes less space than a barebones W2k, which is pretty amazing on the Linux part.
More information about the ECLUG mailing list