On 08/28/01 07:33 PM, Vincent Lefevre sat at the `puter and typed:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 18:48:21 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-08-27 13:39:52 -0400, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> >
> > >Is there a specific reason for this? or is there a way to override
> > >this without a code edit? If not, what are the implications of
> > >patching the code to allow Lines and Content-Length headers to be
> > >kept/modified in an edited message?
> >
> > Leaving these headers in would make it considerably easier for the
> > user to screw up their folders.
Good point. Isn't this somewhat more of a concern when the user is
less savvy than your typical user that likes to have accurate size
info?
> But why shouldn't Mutt update them?
This is really the question I had in my mind but for some reason I
couldn't get it out right :). Thanks Thomas!
If there is a Lines or Content-Length header, Mutt should update it if
possible. Otherwise, info about the message is being lost. I agree
that making corruption of a folder difficult is good, but information
should never be lost. Why is it so difficult to update it anyway? It
seems to me a simple count and check wouldn't result in any noticable
performance issues.
Personally, I have gone thru a little extra effort to make sure these
headers are there, so I'd like Mutt to either leave them alone or
update them for me if I happen to edit the other headers.
Just my $0.02.
Lou
--
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
http://acadia.ne.mediaone.net ԿԬ
Wrinkles should merely indicate where smiles have been.
-- Mark Twain
