Mail clients (was Re: script to break up mp3s)

[Kurt Granroth]

On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Alex Dean wrote:
> Kurt Granroth wrote:
>> Thunderbird may not be the greatest MUA out there (IMO) but  it  
>> handles the mail basics just fine.
>>
>
> I've been pretty happy with Thunderbird.  It's a little rough  
> around the edges still, but seems like a pretty solid program.  Do  
> you have any recommendations for something better?  Is there a  
> 'greatest MUA' out there?  If so, I want to know about it.

Alas, I can't say that there is a single 'greatest' MUA.  Each of the  
contenders has some unescapable flaw.  Thunderbird is an undisbutably  
popular client and it is fairly feature-full.  If you're happy with  
it, then it's unlikely you'd prefer anything else.

I've attempted to use Thunderbird myself on several occasions (a few  
early candidates and then 1.0).  I really liked the fact that it is  
cross-platform, but there was always something that irked me enough  
to drop it out of contention.  Offhand, I think the last time I tried  
it, it was the crappy LDAP support (mostly) and non-existent  
integration into the 'system' (address book, browser, application  
associations, etc).

I split my time between four MUAs.  When on OS X (which is most of  
the time at home), I use Mail.app.  When on Linux, I use KMail.  Both  
have great integration into the system as a whole.  They are my two  
favorite MUAs by a long shot.  The rest of the time is split between  
Outlook (mostly because I have to and partially because I *LOVE* the  
side-by-side folders, message lists, and preview pane... a feature  
that is imitated extremely poorly by Thunderbird and KMail) and 'mutt'.

Hrm.. I suppose I should qualify my original remarks.  Re-reading  
"Thunderbird may not be the greatest MUA" in retrospect sounds like I  
am saying that it's bad and it's definitely not.  Thunderbird = good;  
Thunderbird != great