On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:22:34PM -0500, David T-G wrote: > ...and then Gary Johnson said...
> % On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 05:46:09AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % > % > Please help me clarify... Is it the case that $mime_forward does not > % > work at all for you, or simply that you do not want to forward the > % > message, with its attachments, in its own single attachment container? > % > % OK, let me try to explain this by an example. Someone sends me a > > I just wanted to make sure I understood the problem; lots of people > started pointing to $mime_forward when I didn't think that that was the > answer Aleks sought. I'm sorry if my tone was impolite. I was exasperated by the apparent need to explain again what I thought Aleks had already made clear. One reason for replying in such detail was that I wanted to be sure that I understood the problem myself before criticizing mutt's behavior, so I tried all the ways I knew of forwarding as I was writing the reply. I learned some stuff. > ... > % twice to select both parts of the message, then type ';f' to forward > % both parts. After answering "n" to "Forward MIME encapsulated? > % ([n]/y):", mutt starts my editor with the text/plain part already there. > > So you (or you in Aleks's shoes) want to be able to edit the text body as > though it were a reply. OK. I guess this is habit as much as anything else. Mutt's default forwarding behavior, as well as that of a lot of other mailers, judging from the mail I receive, is to include the original message in the new message's body. So that's what I've come to expect. > % in the message. Again great! This is exactly the behavior I want. But > % I want it as easily as I get the other forwarding behaviors, in one > % keystroke, maybe two. > > So $mime_forward and putting any prologue in your envelope isn't good > enough. Hey, if you want it, then that's fine. It seems useless to me > but that's why we have a configurable MUA :-) The $mime_forward behavior is OK, but it's not what I've been conditioned to expect when I forward a message. I would expect the basic behavior of forwarding to be consistent, whether or not I chose to include the original message's attachments. > I repeat that it's time for a feature patch, so one of you guys either > start coding one or find someone who will. I wasn't as frustrated with mutt not having the feature as I was with feeling that the feature wasn't being understood. Nevertheless, I suppose its time that I took a look at the code to see how difficult adding such a feature might be. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
