On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> As for resuming postponed messages, I have defined the following key
> binding, which I use on draft messages that have been indexed by
> notmuch:
[...]
So I have improved on this, I believe. I now have this in my .emacs as
test
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
As for resuming postponed messages, I have defined the following key
binding, which I use on draft messages that have been indexed by
notmuch:
[...]
So I have improved on this, I believe. I now have
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard
> wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
> > is certainly not editing a priviously received message in order to
> > (re)send it
Hi Jameson,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:40:44 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:36:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupr?
> wrote:
> > I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, I had a lot of trouble
> > making message-mode digest an existing buffer. For example, if you take
> >
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im
wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
is certainly not editing a priviously received
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard
> wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
> > is certainly not editing a priviously received message in order to
> > (re)send it
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:00:45 -0400, Antoine Beaupr?
wrote:
> How about we patch that in? Seems like a major feature missing...
Handling postponed messages is definitely something that's missing.
It's a little tricky, though, because notmuch-show.el doesn't handle
display of message-mode
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard
wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
> is certainly not editing a priviously received message in order to
> (re)send it again but sending a postponed/draft message which, I guess,
> means no full
Hi Jameson,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:40:44 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:36:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré anar...@koumbit.org
wrote:
I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, I had a lot of trouble
making message-mode digest an existing
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
is certainly not editing a priviously received message in order to
(re)send it again but sending a postponed/draft message which, I guess,
means
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:32:58 +0200, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im
wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood original goal but what I had in mind reading this
is certainly not editing a priviously received
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:00:45 -0400, Antoine Beaupré anar...@koumbit.org wrote:
How about we patch that in? Seems like a major feature missing...
Handling postponed messages is definitely something that's missing.
It's a little tricky, though, because notmuch-show.el doesn't handle
display of
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:31:31 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> I think this could be simplified a lot and many of the known issues
> addressed if this were narrowed to *only* resuming from drafts.
> message-mode draft files aren't MIME messages (or, at least, they're
> never multipart, and
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:36:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupr?
wrote:
> I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, I had a lot of trouble
> making message-mode digest an existing buffer. For example, if you take
> any existing buffer and call (message-mode) on it, you will notice it
> will clear the
On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:31:31 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
I think this could be simplified a lot and many of the known issues
addressed if this were narrowed to *only* resuming from drafts.
message-mode draft files aren't MIME messages (or, at least, they're
never multipart,
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:36:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré anar...@koumbit.org wrote:
I think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, I had a lot of trouble
making message-mode digest an existing buffer. For example, if you take
any existing buffer and call (message-mode) on it, you will notice it
will
I think this could be simplified a lot and many of the known issues
addressed if this were narrowed to *only* resuming from drafts.
message-mode draft files aren't MIME messages (or, at least, they're
never multipart, and message-mode has its own special annotations over
basic RFC 822), so rather
I think this could be simplified a lot and many of the known issues
addressed if this were narrowed to *only* resuming from drafts.
message-mode draft files aren't MIME messages (or, at least, they're
never multipart, and message-mode has its own special annotations over
basic RFC 822), so rather
18 matches
Mail list logo
