On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:51:09 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-07-04, Chris D'Agnolo > wrote:
>>
>>> Wow! I used mutt for years, and elm before that. Mutt especially is
>>> fast and incredibly powerful. On the other hand I have no complaints
>>> with Thunderbird, and I don't have to manually configure procmail,
>>> spamassassin, etc etc.
>>>
>>> I've used slrn quite a bit as well, but for the past five years or
>>> so I've been using Pan.
>>
>> UGLY TRUTH:
>>
>> I've never heard of CYGWIN or MUTT or PROCMAIL, SPAMASSASIN or PAM!
>> I think I'm more along the lines of the Keep It Simple Stupid side of
>> things. In such a case, seems to me Thunderbird or Live Mail are the
>> most likely choices.
>
> Huh?
>
> Mutt and slrn are far, far more "simple" than Thunderbird (which is a
> huge, bloated program) or Live Mail (which is from Microsoft -- 'nuf
> said).

Well, I suppose this is all true. However, my current desktop PC has a
quad core i7 cpu and 12 gb ram. I'm running five VMs and am still only
at ~30% load. I could run dozens of instances of tbird if I so chose.

I used to feel the same way about bloat. It's why I preferred elm over
pine all those years ago. But honestly, how can any of this matter now?