3 ms·
Can someone who is familiar with both this and mutt explain why one would choose to use the former rather than the latter?
by leephillips 4y ago
Can someone who is familiar with both this and mutt explain why one would choose to use the former rather than the latter?
- smorrebrod 4y agoClaws has a GUI, so buttons, drag and drop, etc. It has a pretty good html rendering engine. Also it uses MH format which I prefer.
- al_borland 4y ago>It has a pretty good html rendering engine. I'm a bit confused. Another comment listed the following as a con of Claws: >Can't send HTML email (whatever) and can't view HTML without a pretty clunky plugin (annoying). I usually use a keybinding to send HTML emails to a Firefox instance that has networking disabled.
- smorrebrod 4y agoTrue HTML rendering is made through a plugin. Although if I remember correctly, plugins are included in the base package. Never had an issue with the HTML plugin but didn't use it on complex HTML so YMMV.
- leephillips 4y agoMutt supports MH. I didn’t know about the HTML engine, thanks. (Personally, I prefer mutt’s approach, where I can use the external HTML viewer of my choice, but don’t sacrifice the speed of a terminal interface when manipulating mail.)