Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!vax5!ut6y
From: ut6y@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: MH verses the "all in one file" MUAs
Message-ID: <18916@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 3 Jul 89 17:20:51 GMT
References: <113461@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1518@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Reply-To: ut6y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (The Dread Pirate Mikey (Mike Shappe))
Distribution: na
Organization: Not in my apartment, there isn't.
Lines: 18

My $.02 cents...

The main thing I find ELM (for example) has over MH, both of which I have,
in my time, installed and used extensively, is speed.  Elm2.2 is considerably
faster on our little Vax 750 (Vax1.cit.cornell.edu) than MH6.6.  Both, I 
find, provide a great number of features that I like, and in general, balance out in every other way.

The other advantage to ELM is that you don't have to go through EMACS to
get a really good screen interface.

The final advantage is simply that it is compatible with normal Berkley Mail.
This may not seem important until you realize that there are times when one
has to, for whatever reason, resort to old Mail/Mailx.  MHMail requires
a format conversion in order to integrate whatever you did under Mail.  Elm
does not.

Unc
.