4 ms·
Mutt is exactly something that would be nice to rewrite in Rust, moreover, splitting into various crates of working with email, so that it will be possible to r
by xvilka 3y ago
Mutt is exactly something that would be nice to rewrite in Rust, moreover, splitting into various crates of working with email, so that it will be possible to reuse the same code for both TUI and GUI clients.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- djha-skin 3y agoAlready done: https://pimalaya.org/ https://pimalaya.org/
- abound 3y agoAnd also: https://meli-email.org/ https://meli-email.org/
- mimotomo2009 3y agoIt took only a second to see what I would miss as like on most of the mail clients: why isn't it possible to configure the list of mails to see not only the sender but the e-mail address? I only know three e-mail clients where I can configure it: mutt, betterbird and evolution. But maybe I'm old and no one would like to see that "bill gates <fake@bad.boy>" is not from bill gates before opening the mail (and render the contents). The phisher are thankful.
- Karellen 3y agoYou can do it in Claws Mail (also available on Windows): Configuration -> Preferences -> Display/Summaries -> Message List -> Displayed in From Column: Name | Address | Name and Address
- lsllc 3y agoSo this looks like it might even support "cloud" based email services with OAuth2/MFA authentication such as Outlook/Exchange in the cloud: https://pimalaya.org/himalaya/cli/latest/configuration/outlook.html https://pimalaya.org/himalaya/cli/latest/configuration/outlo...
- consp 3y ago> so that it will be possible to reuse the same code for both TUI and GUI clients. Why must a generaly good improvement these days always start on HN with "rewrite in rust" like it's the only language which still matters. Leave that up to the developer to what they prefer for the job.
- roydivision 3y agoYou're new here aren't you?
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago> Why must a generaly good improvement these days always start on HN with "rewrite in rust" like it's the only language which still matters. I'm guessing so that its likely to 1) be safer by default, 2) likely to get more contributors, 3) more likely to work cross-platform, and 4) more likely to get attention and survive as a project.
- BirAdam 3y ago"memory safe by default" but not necessarily "safer" by default. A code base that has been battle tested in production for decades will likely be safer in every other way than an entirely new project that has got thrown up on a git repo yesterday.