[arch-general] Email via mutt+offlineimap+msmtp

[Joe(theWordy)Philbrook]

It would appear that on Jan 13, gt did say:

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 05:14:13PM +0200, Mantas M. wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 08:33:36AM -0500, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
> > > Pardon me for jumping in here, but if mutt isn't smart enough to
> > > automatically use In-Reply-To: and/or References: headers on replies? Or
> > > likes to add extra Re: (IE: Re: Re: Re:) to the subject header line?
> > > {All of which is news to me BTW...} Then I gotta ask, "why use it?"
> > 
> > It *does* add In-Reply-To and References by default. It does *not* add extra "Re:"s if one is already present. (It *does*, however, add "Re:" if it has not been added yet; *all* mail programs do that.)
> 
> +1

I'm glad to hear it. Not being a mutt user I didn't know for sure...

I hadn't noticed the beginning of this thread. But it appeared that
Madhurya Kakati didn't know how to get mutt to do those things when he
responded to Alfredo Palhares' somewhat impolite complaint about those things...
Hence I offered an alternative.
 
> Also, @ Joe Philbrook
> 
> Firstly, Alpine isn't maintained anymore.

see below...
 
> Secondly, mutt is much more configurable and more help is available for
> it on the net.

I'm glad to know that. If alpine, re-alpine, or some future fork of them
should stop being viable to me. learning to use mutt might be my only
alternative to giving up on email altogether. (I have yet to find a GUI
client I can stomach...) 

> Configuring mutt was a pain, but well worth it.

I did once consider mutt but I was having a problem with getting it
configured to suit my needs... And by then I was already hooked on most of
alpine's user interface.

It would appear that on Jan 13, gt did also say:

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 07:14:38PM +0200, Mantas M. wrote:
> > On 2012-01-13 17:56, gt wrote:
> > > Firstly, Alpine isn't maintained anymore.
> > 
> > There is a fork "re-alpine", though.
> Yeah, I know of that, but i heard of it, after i got hooked to mutt :)

And I note that as a multi-boot/multi-Linux-distribution user That the
"alpine" packages found in at least some of the distro's repositories
appears to be compiled from re-alpine sources since If I understand it
right, the last official Uwash alpine version was 2.00 yet for example:

~ 
UnderTree =-> pacman -Ss alpine
extra/re-alpine 2.02-3 [installed]
    The continuation of the Alpine email client from University of Washington
~ 
UnderTree =-> 

Since I tend to stick with package manager installed software, I can't tell
you how pleased I was when I 1st noticed that some pacman -Syu had upgraded my
Arch installation's alpine beyond version 2.00...  ;-)

-- 
|   ---   ___
|   <0>   <->     Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
|       ^              J(tWdy)P
|    ~\___/~      <<jtwdyp at ttlc.net>>