Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40728 comp.unix.xenix:9197 comp.unix.i386:1985
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!oha!tony
From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386
Subject: MUA (was Re: ISC update)
Message-ID: <396@oha.UUCP>
Date: 24 Dec 89 21:52:00 GMT
References: <511090@nstar.UUCP> <340@vidiot.UUCP>
Reply-To: tony@oha.UUCP
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Lines: 13
Keywords: ISC ELM MUSH
Summary: Consider MUSH too.
In-Reply-To: Message <340@vidiot.UUCP> dated 20 Dec 89 17:34:35 GMT
Return-Path: <alberta!oha!tony>

In message <340@vidiot.UUCP>, brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>
> Compared to elm, to me, every other user mail handler sucks.

Well, I like mush better, after having used both for a while.  Don't get
me wrong, I have no criticism of elm.  However, I suggest to those of you
who are considering a new MUA: read the manual for both elm and mush, and
see which fits your environment/tastes better.  Also, both have UseNET
groups, so you might want to hang out there for a while during your
decision-making period.

--
Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.UUCP).