@h4rmony and your comparison rules
>>For people not familiar with Mutt, here is the interface: screenshot. This is what you're comparing to Outlook.
For you, apparently, not familiar with the fact that, for Mutt as any highly configurable piece of software, there might be tons of interfaces possible, here more that look like mine
>>you haven't actually used the current version of Outlook in any significant way
Outlook runs only on Windows, so no chance for me, mam (which is not a shortcoming for you according to the tone of the corresponding reply). Let me also assume you haven't used latest mutt-patched as well.
>>You've now shifted your position to "Mutt plus other software used alongside it can do some of the same things as Outlook more or less".
It was your position or the way you extrapolated my position. From one of the last discussions we had, you showed a great power of surmising things (like when you were simply assuming that Google have a lesser patent gut than that of Microsoft's among many other of your surmises)
My position was that "a user can do it within mutt", are you supposed to count all the "external" shared libs too that mutt uses as a dependency? This is how the old Unix paradigm is applied to Mutt, a (text) Mail client. It doesn't prevent me or others from viewing an html body, it gives me more power and options. GNUS btw, can use amongst many others, the "internal" w3m-mode.
>>The GPG4Win Outlook plugin doesn't work for Office 2013 64-bit version yet (that's still quite new) but does for the 32-bit version and others.
Okay, so people that have 64bit Windows version are out of luck then making pretty much every modern Windows machine out? Welcome to the 21st century: unless it's an atom-based or just old hardware, it's hard to find 32bit Windows nowadays.
>>It's Windows only, as I'm sure you know. I very much doubt many Outlook users care.
According to you, they don't care about that, however they would if the the html part is rendered by an external program, like Firefox (by pressing "v" and "Enter")?
>>>4) can it be run without GUI (like in the Core Server environment)?
>>No. Who uses an email client on a headerless server environment? If you're trying to sell Mutt as more capable than Outlook (sorry - "probably" more capable) by holding up its lack of GUI as a feature you're far removed from normal use cases.
It's headless, not headerless. The latter would apply to a gobbled email message, I guess. As far as " Who uses an email client on a headerless server environment?" is concerned, I and many other people very happily do. Are you familiar with the purposes an email service has for an administrator? A malfunctioning service, an error, a warning can be communicated to the local admin via email. It's convenient to have some form of sendmail ( I use postfix), mail-utils and an email client installed on the machine. Sure one can use mail command, mutt is more comfortable, capable and familiar to me though. I bet, based on your answer there is no alternative for the Windows headless server?
>>$ol = New-Object -comObject Outlook.Application
gm -InputObject $ol
$mail = $ol.Session.OpenSharedItem("C:\Test Email Subject.msg")
$Mail.Subject = "Test Mail"
$Mail.Body = " Here is some text"
This is a lot of writing and looks pretty ugly. I'd prefer a much simpler syntax like this one:
Here's my message.... " | mutt -F ~/.mutt/one_of_myprofyles -s "Hi from me" email@example.com -a ~/Documents/attached.pdf
>>Fine. Exchange is recommended so you can use the calendaring and other features, but here is how to set it up with IMAP...
A few people in this thread were complaining about the IMAP implementation in OUtlook. this article states that Outlook 2013 has "..."IMAP improvements (although it has a lot of bugs in IMAP)" Hence was my question.
As far as Exchange is concerned, it's all MS' proprietary protocol which you also have to buy as a feature if you'd like your server to have. In the 21st century proprietary, lock-in protocols should die out.
>>Wildcards only in the default interface. You could, if you wished, create a short script which used regular expressions and attach it as a filter / search. Bit fiddly.
As fiddly as limiting/searching for mail containing wildcard constructs like
~d 21/3/2012*3y*5m*2w*3d =f fromsomeone =b "some text in the body "
#-- show me all the emails in this mailbox dated within 3 years 5months, 2 weeks and 3 days since March 21 2012 sent from fromsomeone containing "some text" in their bodies
Where "=" (versus "~") indicates to use the IMAP4 server-side method (otherwise it might be a lot of bandwidth and time spent)
>>>>7) can you pipe any email message (any part from a message) onto a command from the shell or an application?
>>Again, this is far, far removed from normal use case. You could do it with a script if you wished. Or, you know, hit Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V.
Your definition of "normal use case" might differ from others'. Highly inconvenient and might be impossible. Say, what if I wanna pipe the whole raw text contents of the email(s), including headers? Putting it into the script instead of the visual approach just removes the necessity of the MUA then, what's the point of using it in the first place?
>>Already answered the regex. Yes, you could do this but you'd have to know a small amount about using regex's in scripts.
And this is within the "normal use" for you of course. "regex" with wild cards, ok, anyway to use those on Outlook 2013 and do something similar to getting all mail by this construct
~d 21/3/2012*3y*5m*2w*3d =f fromsome =b "some text in the body " bounce them at some address and move to a separate IMAP folder, or save to a local mbox?
>>It is actually simpler given that it is GUI based. It's footprint is not as low but it runs fine on any modern hardware. Once you meet the condition of "running fine", you've met user needs. Besides, that's not really a "capability". More goal post shifting.
I was not talking about the UI, and btw, you must have not used even the vanilla mutt client, it's very simple to use.
Again, is it up to you to come up with criteria and comparison rules: what's 21 century, what is normal use case and abnormal use case, what is modern hardware and software and what is obsolete, whether being cross-platform is cool or sucks and so on? I am at least using the probably adverb. You always seem to be 100% sure about things until get pointed to contradictions as in the case of 40K vs 50K patents fact.