On Mutt vs Outlook comparison, @h4rmony
>>Ability to display formatting or embedded images are two capabilities missing from Mutt compared to Outlook that spring immediately to mind.
Mutt got an ability to use external software (w3m, firefox, image viewers) of a user's choice that have this capabilities. It's been done back in the 20th century. An ability to render a raw text email without gobbling it (and without extra clicks) is also a plus, to say nothing about the security advantage a user has when viewing an html body and seeing the forged links.
As far as Outlook is concerned, being in 21st there are questions to ask :
1) How many Operating Systems besides MS Windows can it run on?
2) how well does it handle IMAP?
3) can you use pgp/gpg for signatures and mail encryption?
4) can it be run without GUI (like in the Core Server environment)?
5) can you use it in a script or out of the command line?
6) does the search/filtering in Outlook support regular expression (and virtual mailboxes for that matter)?
7) can you pipe any email message (any part from a message) onto a command from the shell or an application? Can you tag any number of messages using regex option as in search/filtering and do the same, or apply mailbox operation such as moving to a different (remote) box, saving, deleting etc?
8) can you use external editor of your choice (like vim/Emacs) for message composition?
9) is it as simple, fast and with as low foot print as Mutt (around 28MB of RAM for me currently for 10K email messages on gmail IMAP)?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
