Re: Why are we still using trn?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: (Denis McKeon)

> I switched from readnews to rn (a 1985 pre-trn rn), then to trn,
> (Trn version: 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000)) which does 95-98% of what I want, 

> What David said.  Heck, for mail I'm still using:
>     MuSH (Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98))

Giggle - I'm using Trn version: 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001).
and Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98)


I use trn because it does what I want it to - message selection files (aka
KILL files) with regular expressions that I can use to select messages that
I do or do not want to see, ascii only interface (so I can use it via
telnet sessions), relatively fast (except for some of my stupider 
kill files...), only crashes once every 6 months or so...

Tcl - The glue of a new generation.  <URL: >
Larry W. Virden <> <URL:>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.

This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!

[Index of Archives]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Epson Inkjet]     [Mhonarc]     [Nntpcache]

  Powered by Linux