I don't think people use mutt because of security (other than good PGP support). I think people use mutt because they like the efficiency of a lean, terminal based, email client.
What's wrong with Thunderbird? Note that if you use it as an IMAP client for Gmail, that Gmail's IMAP implementation is -as I understand it- kinda bad, so you're gonna kinda have a bad time.
It's slow, it's bugged (occasionally it just spins up and uses 100% CPU for hours – or until your battery runs out, or you kill it), and most importantly, its keyboard workflow is poor.
I find that it hasn't really been designed for keyboard-only use. Some features, such as switching folders for instance, seem to require a mouse, or at least I haven't been able to find a shortcut for doing it. It's also kind of hard to avoid accidentally composing html emails - it cannot be disabled completely. I still use thunderbird myself though, as I haven't been able to find a better alternative for Linux. claws-mail comes close, but it does too much work in the ui thread, which grinds everything to a halt whenever it fetches email. Why do mail clients all seem to suck so much, given how much people use email?
That sounds like a lot of work if you have a non-trivial number of folders or labels.
In the end, mutt vs. Thunderbird is pretty much like vim vs. gedit. gedit is far easier to use out of the box, but vim allows you to define your own (complex) commands, allowing you to basically make your own editor.
E.g. I like GMail shortcuts, so I added macros like the following to my muttrc[1]:
macro index,pager gl "<change-vfolder>?/"
macro index,pager gi "<change-vfolder>inbox<enter>" "go to the inbox"
macro index,pager ga "<change-vfolder>archive<enter>" "go to the archive"
For instance, gl immediately gives me a list of vfolders and does the keystrokes to start a search. So, like GMail, I can immediately start typing a name of a folder.
I agree with you here. Further, I'll add that it being 100kloc and not Thunderbird etc tells us nothing about its security. It will have plenty of flaws that show up when hackers decide it's worth the time just maybe less. I do like simple, console apps for all the security tech I can easily use with them. Doubt the mutt users are doing that outside MAC, jails, etc.
But just using mutt is giving up much usability and features with little benefit in security. They're better off using good config and sandboxing with a client that gets more audits and bug fixes.
Honestly, depending on what you're comparing to, i consider mutt a step forward in terms of usability. How long does your search for a specific email take using the Gmail interface? I bet it's longer than using an indexing backend like notmuch or mu locally :)
I generally agree with you (I use a text-based mua myself), but your specific example isn't great. Gmail -- probably rather predictably -- does search as well as or better than anyone in the world, including your local installation of mu. In Gmail specifically, it's instant.
I just tried a search in Gmail. Took a fraction of a second. I tried one in Claws email client which pulls local copies of the emails. Happened instantly as you predicted. Caching speeds up search indeed. Now, what does a fraction of a second improvement on search have to do with security and usability of email? That would have very little impact on my choice of email client.
You're right about it being irrelevant to security. Somewhere else in this thread i pointed out that this isn't a motivation for me, so i agree with you there. The only reason i bring up search speed is to rebut the assertion elsewhere in the thread that my email client is a step backwards in usability/features.
For me, the advantages are: works all over (e.g., i can find out my buddy's apartment address from an email in 2008 even if i'm nowhere near wifi), it's snappy, keyboard-driven (like, really -- Google Mail with their cute mnemonics or Thunderbird with shortcuts don't count), text-only (because i'm a nerd, and perhaps you could argue vague hand-wavey security stuff here), and because i can Elisp my way out of sticky situations. Especially the Elisp.
On that last point, you might well contend that if i used an email client to your liking i wouldn't need to Elisp my way out of anything, but i think that's beside the point. For the first time in years (i've been using mu4e for a year now, and before that mutt, starting 2006) i've actually been able to make my client do exactly what i want using a real programming language -- certain formatting hacks, PGP to certain people in certain circumstances, email address completion the way i want it, etc.
But anyway, it's probably not for everyone :). There's also no such thing as a "best" email client, probably -- i'm just partial to the create-your-own-MUA kit that i've found in mu4e :).
This is waaaay off-topic though, i'm not even talking about mutt any more. Sorry, i got a little carried away :).
Oh, it's OK: it was an interesting comment and relevant to why people still use things like this. Keyboard-driven, works in low bandwidth, and hackable are definite advantages. I could see geeks (even me) enjoying something like that. I also agree that the "best" client is relative to the needs of the user.
