[techtalk] X Mail client recommendations

[Telsa Gwynne]

I asked about the attractions of graphical mailers:
> >I am very curious to know what X-based mailers have that console
> >mailers don't. Note that I can view URLs and display pictures in mutt
> >when I run it in X, so that doesn't count!

Thanks for the responses :) 

Britta:  
> I think it's not so much having pics etc, but rather having buttons 
> to click and menus to choose from. Even though I love Linux and the 
> power of the command line (the Power of the Command Line ? ;), I like 
> having _nice-looking_ GUIs for things like email. 

Karolina:
> Isn't "looking nice" a good enough reason? I feel that nice looks is as
> good a reason as any. But I prefer a program that does what I want
> to do good, and dispenses with all the bells and whistles.

Dan:
>    * Unthinking interface for lazy (in the un-Perlish sense) users like 
> me who ingest graphical data more quickly than textual -- especially 
> between 01:00 and 03:00, which is typical slurp time for my 
> @moodindigo.com mail.
>     * At-a-glance display of *all* folders and quantitative feedback
> concerning their size and state. Britta made some good observations about
> this in her message, especially about tree displays. I like 'em.

Cleverly, I snipped the relevant part of Britta's mail about that,
but yeah, I can see that. I can get the size of my folders easily
enough, but that requires deliberately asking for it, and it's not
constantly there. I expect not having that there when you're used
to it would be a pain.

So it seems to be "more information at a glance" and "easier UI",
then?  I'm not the world's most accurate mouse-user, so I find it 
easier to type than to get the right button or menu, but I know the 
computer using world is divided into people who find one of mouse/text 
easier.

I certainly don't object to "looks nice" as a good enough reason.
But for so long I have had a computer which didn't do X, and then
a slow (by everyone else's standards) machine with a tiny tiny monitor 
which showed very little so that I had to spend ages mousing about 
playing with a virtual screen size that was bigger than the displayed 
bit, that I came to hate apps which ate all my screen! I have scaled 
the dizzy heights of a consistent 1024x768 now, so maybe things will 
fit a bit better :)

I certainly wasn't intending to come across as a "who needs graphics?"
text-only bigot. It was a genuine "what am I missing?" question.
I think I shall have to try to build Balsa or Spruce and see what
happens. I've just seen too many "Netscape just ate the email I 
was about to send!" messages to brave that particular one :)

Telsa

************
techtalk at linuxchix.org   http://www.linuxchix.org