On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:30:05 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> This is a small set of tweaks to remove unneccessary "Non-text part:"
> lines in reply, for parts that really don't need to be mentioned.
I have applied this series on top of master, and will push a bit later today.
d
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:29:52 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> I have applied this series on top of master, and will push a bit later today.
Great. Thanks so much, David.
jamie.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailm
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:29:52 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> I have applied this series on top of master, and will push a bit later today.
Great. Thanks so much, David.
jamie.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:30:05 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
wrote:
> This is a small set of tweaks to remove unneccessary "Non-text part:"
> lines in reply, for parts that really don't need to be mentioned.
I have applied this series on top of master, and will push a bit later today.
d
___
It's too bad this requires lots of special-casing. I dug into mutt,
hoping to find some simpler way to choose what to reply to, but all I
found was a far more complicated collection of heuristics (see
mutt_body_handler if you're interested).
Should reply *ever* include a "Non-text part" message?
It's too bad this requires lots of special-casing. I dug into mutt,
hoping to find some simpler way to choose what to reply to, but all I
found was a far more complicated collection of heuristics (see
mutt_body_handler if you're interested).
Should reply *ever* include a "Non-text part" message?
This is a small set of tweaks to remove unneccessary "Non-text part:"
lines in reply, for parts that really don't need to be mentioned.
This patch set is not really related to the series that it is being
sent in reply to, but it has been worked on top of the message/rfc822
rework of the multipart
This is a small set of tweaks to remove unneccessary "Non-text part:"
lines in reply, for parts that really don't need to be mentioned.
This patch set is not really related to the series that it is being
sent in reply to, but it has been worked on top of the message/rfc822
rework of the multipart
