[neomutt-users] *-hook settings. I'm confused

[GTC at riseup.net]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 02:49:46PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2019-08-07 15:47, Richard Russon wrote:
> 
> > > It is probably much easier to write something new than fixing those
> > > things that are beyond repair? 
> > 
> > I'm old/experienced enough to know that re-writing a program from
> > scratch is seldom a good idea.  Especially one as large and complicated
> > as Mutt.
> 
> This is very true, but.
> 
> I'm only using a tiny part of all that code.  In particular, _NONE_ of
> the network protocols: I download mail over ssh then read it locally
> from my disk, and I send by shelling out /usr/sbin/sendmail whatever
> that happens to point to.  Also, I only use Maildir and none of the
> other mailbox formats.
> 
> Given that, maybe I can be excused for wondering if writing a new client
> from scratch, restricted to this narrow use case, might be viable (and I
> mean I do the work, of course).


I agree. 

Besides, many functions or features in mutt such as imap connection, default pgp or encyption settings, multiple account supports, syntax, terminology etc are really not the best practice or up to date. 

For example, mutt imap is very slow, use lots of memory and very inefficient compared with iSync or mbsync. It seems mutt is originally designed for pop and imap is later added.

The configration of PGP settings even for single accounts requires much more work than other mail clients. 

That hook thing is so complicated ...

Reply all is modern terminology. But it seems in mutt, it is called group reply..

Its syntax eg  ^username at something$ does not look like bash, where a variable is $Variable. In bash, echo does not even need ^ or ' or `.

The bash syntax is infinitely cleaner and nicer than mutt, in my personal opinion.

Given all these reasons, re-writing mutt to a MUA or mail client with modern syntax, modern terminology, and better stable protocols support will significantly be better.

Even fixing it, these need to be changed too. So probably same amount of work.

Furthermore, many mutt features are probably no longer needed in modern times, eg ask To: and Subject. We can remove them and let user deal with it in editor. Then change the compose mail flow to automatically add custom setting after editor...

Maybe fixing mutt is as much work as, or probably even more work than re-writting it.

Ryan



> 
> -- 
> Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
> if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
> To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
> which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.