According to help page Escs key binded to decode-save. The problem
is mutt always trying delete original message after save. How to avoid
such behaviour?
--
/4625 () кампания ascii ribbon - против писем в html формате
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - против проприетарных
5-Feb-2010 числа в 11:12 часов, Christian Ebert написал(а) следующее:
* 4625 on Friday, February 05, 2010 at 03:06:43 -0800
According to help page Escs key binded to decode-save. The problem
is mutt always trying delete original message after save. How to avoid
such behaviour?
Use
On Thu 4, Feb'10 at 8:07 PM -0800, Morris, Patrick wrote:
Some of us are fans of the interpretation of the Unix philosophy that
includes gluing together a lot of small, purpose-built apps into a greater
(albeit sometimes messy and convoluted) whole.
I agree with this for the most part.
On Fri 5, Feb'10 at 5:28 PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
Well, you want an automated processing, not writing regular mail
where you type something. You don't need a MUA for that, you can go
directly to te MTA.
Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks for that.
Though, there are
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:32:59 -0500 -=
Though, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the
body of the message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you
can send to some list addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
I do, but the interfaces vary, so ... I just
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:50:02PM -0600, David Young wrote:
Isn't this a problem of packaging, not a problem of architecture
or philosophy?
It should be evident from the large amount of traffic on this list
that it is not. If you've been here long enough, you see the same
threads over and
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -=
If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone
willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical
reason for such an exclusion; not simply duh, Unix philosophy!!
It's resource efficiency: I don't want to
I'm replying to this thread even if is a little bit OT.
I've discovered today a mutt behaviour and I want to share with you.
If you want to forward a message with an attachment, in mutt you can:
- set the variable mime_forward and have the forwared message (plus
attachment) sent attacched to
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
C-code
Not *all*... just the ones that make sense. The Unix Philosophy
doesn't preclude maintainers from using their brains to decide what
features do or don't make sense.
'Evening, Derek
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
Why do you link _against_ C libraries? Surely you
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 14:39:24 -0600 -=
The Unix Philosophy doesn't preclude maintainers from using their
brains to decide what features do or don't make sense. Dogma does.
Can't you imagine that there is actually some brains behind that
dogma?
I'm all against mindless
On 2010-02-04 09:10 -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
I think that's because push actually pushes those commands onto a
stack which mutt subsequently pops. Try putting them in this order
instead:
folder-hook infested 'push limit! ~f annoy...@gmail.comenter'
folder-hook .'push
13 matches
Mail list logo
