* Carbon wrote in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata:

> 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?
>

Only for the purpose of customization. mutt/slrn are hugely customizeable
and you can string together tools that work the way you want instead of
using whatever is built into TB. THis way you get only what you need. Its
no longer an issue of space but I challenge you to get TB started before
mutt!

--
David