ELM vs PINE

vs

Who's with me with the true original ELM?

(PS: I'm also in the vi camp, damn emacs marco-junkies...)

I used Pine mostly. But switched to Mutt at some point.

And vi. Using Emacs is like playing a pipe organ.

PS: Someone should port Pine to Metro

@PaoloM: Clearly Pine is superior in every way, anyone who thinks otherwise should steer well clear of user interface design.

You guys are weird.

hmm.... neither.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

@PaoloM: Clearly Pine is superior in every way, anyone who thinks otherwise should steer well clear of user interface design.

Thunderbird.

PINE all the way. Cuz it has those shiny restore, minimize, maximize buttons.

I used to think that PINE and ELM were the same, but then I found out that...

@PaoloM: This brings back good old memories. I started using PINE, then my brother handed me a CD with Outlook on it and I never looked back.

TELNET !

years back i worked for an ISP and we used PINE a *LOT* but at times we used god old Telent to do stuff ....

esp. back then when some user was sent a large attachement they would never be able to download over dialup  telnet to the pop3 list the messages headers and ask them if we could save the message or delete it for them ...  Dialup Tech Support back when high speed was ISDN !!

That takes me back.  I don't ever recall using ELM, but I spent a lot of time in PINE.  I don't want to go back to either again though.

And of course vi.  Emacs completely sucks.

Wow, the last time I used a command-line email program was back in college in 2000. They only had pine installed on the Solaris workstations, so that's what I used.

But I've always used GUI email clients on Windows, from 3.1 up.