Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @01:36AM
(#10184236)
It is HTML emails that are gross, not plain text.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Not necessarily for the Outlook users. The default setting of my Outlook was to ignore double line breaks and (paragraphs), which makes plain text mails less readable.
Same for me, I cannot think of the use case for this - maybe it was introduced in the embrace/extend/extinguish era to nudge people into using Rich Text format emails?
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @07:21AM
(#10185006)
It is Outlook that is gross.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @09:48AM
(#10185623)
Unfortunately, sometimes in the real world we don't all get to always choose our own tools.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @10:50AM
(#10186000)
Sure, but you still shouldn't blame plain text for Outlook's failures.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @07:43PM
(#10188848)
I didn't lay blame at all. I just asked: "Do you wind up with plaintext emails that look gross when opened in Outlook?"
My presumption, based on your defensiveness/evasiveness, is that the answer is "yes."
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @09:48AM
(#10185620)
Fine, but Outlook does not make plain text emails look nice.