From nobody Mon Oct 31 01:06:16 2022 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N0w2j2gSMz4g7V6 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 01:06:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl) Received: from mailout2.ceti.pl (mailout2.ceti.pl [62.121.128.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4N0w2h3WfTz3MpH for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 01:06:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout2.ceti.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6170A1828B for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:06:17 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailout.ceti.pl Received: from mailout2.ceti.pl ([62.121.128.42]) by localhost (mailout.ceti.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iWE6R5vCQl95 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:06:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from tau1.ceti.pl (tau.ceti.pl [62.121.128.11]) by mailout2.ceti.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0969718238 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:06:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by tau1.ceti.pl (Postfix, from userid 3727) id C9CFC2625; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:06:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:06:16 +0100 From: Tomasz Rola To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GNOME discussions Message-ID: References: <15e8931aefdad251e9410889360925826b690d8a.camel@riseup.net> <3507971d-e9fc-0531-5a63-f22f13854476@freebsd.org> <2419f210-95c5-ec14-0e4c-cb3c368145a2@freebsd.org> List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2419f210-95c5-ec14-0e4c-cb3c368145a2@freebsd.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4N0w2h3WfTz3MpH X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=ceti.pl (policy=none); spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl has no SPF policy when checking 62.121.128.42) smtp.mailfrom=rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.70 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[rtomek@ceti.pl,rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[ceti.pl : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[62.121.128.42:received,62.121.128.42:from,62.121.128.11:received]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15541, ipnet:62.121.128.0/24, country:PL]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[rtomek@ceti.pl,rtomek@tau1.ceti.pl]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:53:50PM +0000, Graham Perrin wrote: > On 30/10/2022 20:23, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > … With text-based MUA called mutt … > > > I am a > > user. > > > As am I, and I used mutt, and pine, or it might have been elm, in the past, > these things have pros and cons. > > I could easily describe numerous downsides to traditional e-mail. With > respect, I'll not. Well, I never had intention to claim that text MUA should fit everybody. You asked about the reason to not use web interface and I think I gave a few. Those are things that matter to me, but as everybody is a bit different creature, my reasons do not apply to every case. BTW, if you know about deficiencies of email, maybe there is never enough of telling about it. Maybe it can be made better. So if feel like this, or know a good summary of those defects, be my guest and speak up... I might have sounded a bit harsh, too. Frankly, I am a bit disgusted about cold treatment that email receives from people pushing various kind of so called "modern" solutions. Things are being broken as if by malevolence. The guys working for multibillion business write email client which breaks threads, AFAIK because it ignores certain headers. They probably do not eat their own dogfood, but they do not have to be ignorant. I believe underfunded startup could write it better. Heck. A student project, even. And so on. While email is not perfect, neither is the replacement. Break email and make alternatives look better in comparison? Maybe. For me, it sounds like a plan. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com **