Hi David, > % Can we make a user-configurable option out of it, please??? > > Maybe I should just stay out of this since I neither codee contributions > or control the source, but it seems that, while the behavior may seem > incorrect, that mutt probably ought to behave like most other mailers in > this respect *and* that such an option would simply be code bloat. Isn't that contradictory? If it is incorrect, but many like it that way, wouldn't it be the logical solution to make it configurable? There are many other examples (like the PGP MIME discussion) where mutt implements the _correct_ version but still offers the incorrect one as a configurable option. In that case it _only_ offers the incorrect version.
> Why not either post and maintain your patch or write a full-featured > option version and then post and maintain that? That seems to provide an > answer for both worlds... For a full-featured option version I don't know enough about the mutt source. I could try to maintain the patch, but there are times when I don't follow the development of mutt (lack of time) so the patch would very fast be outdated. And, hm, besides I still don't like the idea of having to patch every new version of mutt before I can install it. I'm using mutt because it makes my life easier, not more complicated. Thanks, Andy. -- Dr. Andy Spiegl, Radio Marañón, Jaén, Perú E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://spiegl.de, http://radiomaranon.org.pe PGP/GPG: see headers o _ _ _ ------- __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_) -o) ----- _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/ /\\ ---- (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_ _\_v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indeed, thanks to the PC, the Internet has a level of inconvenience that would be unacceptable in any other mass-market medium. (http://www.economist.com/editorial/)
msg22156/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
