10 ms·
I like mutt, but aerc [0] is imho much better. But no matter which solution you prefer, editing emails in the terminal is so much more efficient. If the majorit
by Ringz 2y ago
I like mutt, but aerc [0] is imho much better. But no matter which solution you prefer, editing emails in the terminal is so much more efficient. If the majority would switch to pure text emails instead of HTML...
- dredmorbius 2y agoMissing a link?
- Ringz 2y agoSorry! https://aerc-mail.org/ https://aerc-mail.org/ And some additional sources: https://www.dennisc.net/writing/tech/gmail-aerc https://www.dennisc.net/writing/tech/gmail-aerc https://www.julioloayzam.com/guides/email-with-aerc/ https://www.julioloayzam.com/guides/email-with-aerc/ My simple config and binds that are a little bit more "vim-like": https://github.com/rafo/aerc-vim https://github.com/rafo/aerc-vim
- dredmorbius 2y agoThanks!
- steve_rambo 2y agoaerc sometimes breaks on non-compliant email because the author of the header parser refuses to introduce kludges to handle broken email. When it happens, the mail in question simply doesn't show up in the list. I fully understand that position, but it's not really ideal as a user who can't simply refuse to deal with broken crap. So after using it for a couple of months I reverted to neomutt.
- Ringz 2y agoWhich mail software sends broken mails? As far as I know, this never happens to me.