On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 21:01:44 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Note that the %c value also depends on the encoding, but this may > be less surprising.
Quite obviously. It also includes PGP and S/MIME boilerplate and so on. Misleading regarding the size of the actual text, but quite clear about the message size. > > hard to see the difference between 1.3k and 1.3M at a quick glimpse > > across the index. > > Yes, perhaps the reason I do not use %c. And the fact that the > scaling facteur is on the right instead of the left makes this > even harder (that's a bit like the American dates MMDDYYYY). That's mutt_pretty_size(). If we wanted to overengineer this, this function could be expanded or cloned to be fixed to a certain granularity (such as k or M). (I'm not making this a feature request. OTOH, why not craft my own patch? ;-)) Cheers, Moritz
