1 |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:43:05 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> So I've been wondering what the rest of the story might be, and why |
6 |
> people, at least non-Japanese (no offense, just that info's easier to |
7 |
> absorb if it's not filtered thru google translate or the like), might |
8 |
> prefer sylpheed to claws. If you could shed some light on either the |
9 |
> difference in emphasis and split, or why you personally prefer sylpheed, |
10 |
> I'd be quite interested. =:^) |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
When I first began using Linux, I tried a few of the console email clients |
14 |
such as pine, mutt, and nmh. These programs were useful, but I really |
15 |
preferred a GUI approach to composing and organizing, yet I also did |
16 |
not want to lose the simplicity of the console clients. Sylpheed (the |
17 |
name connotes "light weight" in Japanese) was the answer. It is graphical |
18 |
without being bloated. |
19 |
|
20 |
Sylpheed reminds me of a MS Windows email client called Pegasus, which has |
21 |
a very similar style, ease, and functionality. |
22 |
|
23 |
The Sylpheed web site describes its attractive attributes, I think, nicely: |
24 |
|
25 |
# Simple, beautiful, and well-polished user interface |
26 |
# Comfortable operationality which is built in detail |
27 |
# Well-organized, easy-to-understand configuration |
28 |
# Lightweight operation |
29 |
# High reliability with one-mail-corresponding-to-one-file format |
30 |
|
31 |
Sylpheed has undergone a lot of development over the years, but I really |
32 |
haven't noticed. Email is a simple medium and my Sylpheed has always |
33 |
been simply configured. I don't bother with any of the advanced features. |
34 |
|
35 |
As I mentioned, if I need more complex functionality, such as certificates |
36 |
or encryption, I can always use thunderbird which I keep in reserve, but |
37 |
Sylpheed is my regular email workhorse. |
38 |
|
39 |
I cannot comment on claws which I haven't used, but it is essentially |
40 |
Sylpheed with a lot of extra features incorporated, and, again, it is |
41 |
those features which I don't require. |
42 |
|
43 |
In the end, preferences are based on philosophy and philosophy is based |
44 |
on knowledge. I see, in my mind, every email message for what is is: |
45 |
a string of text. Even MIME attachments, like images or sounds, are there |
46 |
as text strings. I don't need, or prefer, a complex program to dissect |
47 |
all the pieces and "magically" present them to me. It is somehow more |
48 |
appealing to my digital sense to approach these things from a basic level |
49 |
where nothing else will interpose itself. This is why I appreciate |
50 |
software that does not attempt to "do it all" for me and to conceal the |
51 |
details of the process. Others may find this strange, but to me it is |
52 |
the only way. |
53 |
|
54 |
In fact, there was a time when I sent email messages directly from the |
55 |
command line using sendmail clones. The appeal to this was a complete |
56 |
transparency of the process. However, this soon proved to be too much |
57 |
of a burden. Sylpheed restores the ease, but it remains simple and |
58 |
straightforward. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
> > But there are times when I need to communicate to someone that is using |
62 |
> > MS Outlook |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Argh! If they want to read my mail, they can very well read it in plain |
65 |
> text, |
66 |
|
67 |
I also often shriek when I have to deal with the average MS Outlook user. |
68 |
These people don't even understand computers in the least, let alone |
69 |
email. I could relate many horror stories about their antics, but |
70 |
it really is not appropriate here. However, what peeves me the most |
71 |
is that every MS Outlook user will invariably top post (it is the default |
72 |
in Outlook), and top posting is taboo in email communication. But any |
73 |
attempt at explanation of this is futile. The Outlook user has no comprehension |
74 |
of top posting or any thing else about the email standard, and probably |
75 |
believes that Outlook is the only email client that exists. |
76 |
|
77 |
Frank Peters |