On 2007-02-27 17:55:04 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Michael Tatge [07-02-27 18:16:18 +0100] wrote: > >* On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 Vincent Lefevre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > >>On 2007-02-27 15:53:14 +0100, Michael Tatge wrote: > > >>Now I wonder why Mutt doesn't have some (useful) defaults, that would > >>be applied when no attachments statements have been given. > > >Because once you do that the feature is activated. And the default is > >feature not used. > > ...because it has performance issues (obviously).
If the user doesn't want performance issues, he shouldn't use ~X. And obviously, adding attachments statements should have no visible effect until the user asks to count attachments with ~X. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
