Hi, I find myself puzzled here. Mutt is a popular mailer on this list, yet it is characterized as not doing a decent job of handling a very popular type of message. As it happens, I can't use Pine because it doesn't support POP (at least it looks that way from where I am on the steep learning curve). I've never heard of edbrowse but will check it out when I can. Adding to the confusion, I get the feeling that other Mutt users generally have not had problems similar to mine, and I can't find the word "dump" anywhere in the htmlview script. Very strange. I wonder if I were using Screen instead of the naked Linux console if that would have made a difference. As for the insurmountable difficulty of changing Linux to deep-six text mode, let's see: If there are a hundred text-mode modules running during boot-up (they REQUIRE text mode? My my!), and if there are a million Linux programmers, the difficulty is, as noted, truly insurmountable. NOT! Lee On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:59:57PM -0700, L. C. Robinson wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Lee Maschmeyer wrote: > > > I just discovered at least a partial cure for my > > seeming inability to receive HTML messages, or > > at least some of them. Often when trying to > > .... > > . > > . > > .mailcap file containing the following command: > > > text/html; /usr/bin/htmlview -dump %s ; copiousoutput > > The problem with that, is that you are letting any > unknown email source run the htmlview shell script > on your system, a serious security hole (it's well > known that making shell scripts secure is > difficult to the point of being impractical or > impossible). > > And html mail is inherently risky anyway -- I > refuse to use browser based email clients for that > reason, as do many other security conscious > people. If you really must view the html part of > a message (usually deletion is the right option), > why not use a text based email client that can do > a decent job of rendering the text part of it, > (like "pine", for instance), for that message? > > > Whether we like it or not, Linux is going GUI, > > folks. Text mode is already a poor relation and > > it'll get poorer, just as it did when DOS with > > Windows ... > > I'll answer this in faq format. > > Question: The fear that the GUI will somehow > obsolete the text mode environment comes up on > this list from time to time, so I won't go into > much detail ... again. > > Answer: The text part of linux continues to get > richer, with more apps, and will continue to do > so: it can never go away. It is absolutely > essential, for many reasons, for all users. > Search the list archives for more about why, read > the blinux faq, which also gives some sense of > why, however brief (someone should improve on > that, and submit it Hans for inclusion, so that > threads like this will disappear), and here: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html, > which should help with understanding the issues. > GUI apps can never tap more than a small part of > the real power available through the text, > scripting, and utility environments (kind of like > lego style building block program modules -- > hundreds of them are standard in any distribution, > and who knows how many thousands are available on > archive sites, with more every day -- you can't > even boot normally without maybe a hundred or so > of these running). > > The consequence is that NOT having access to the > GUI could actually lead on a fast track to > superior competency and functionality for many > users, though the learning curve is higher. So a > print-disabled/VI user may actually be a premium > hire for an employer, in a linux environment: one > of the things slowing the amazing rate of adoption > of linux in the business environment is the > shortage of competent linux knowledgable > personnel, beyond the GUI. > > LCR > > P.S., Hans, if you want to include the last part > of this answer in the FAQ, till something better > shows up, it's fine with me. Sorry I can't work > it into more suitable form right now. > > -- > L. C. Robinson > reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and > instability instead. This is award winning "innovation". Find > out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see > "CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list _______________________________________________ Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list