Re: segfault with postponed and mutt_1.3.27-4_i386

2002-03-10 Thread Matijs van Zuijlen
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 01:25:09PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 11:12:13AM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:04:02PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > Maybe the subject change will make more eyes look at the message... > > > > > > If you *haven't* s

Re: segfault with postponed and mutt_1.3.27-4_i386

2002-03-09 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 11:12:13AM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:04:02PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > Maybe the subject change will make more eyes look at the message... > > > > If you *haven't* seen this problem yourself, I'd like to know, as well > > if you have.

Re: segfault with postponed and mutt_1.3.27-4_i386

2002-03-09 Thread Matijs van Zuijlen
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:04:02PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Maybe the subject change will make more eyes look at the message... > > If you *haven't* seen this problem yourself, I'd like to know, as well > if you have. > > Mike > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:20:54PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > >

segfault with postponed and mutt_1.3.27-4_i386

2002-03-08 Thread Mike Fedyk
Maybe the subject change will make more eyes look at the message... If you *haven't* seen this problem yourself, I'd like to know, as well if you have. Mike On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:20:54PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > If I have more than one message postponed, mutt segfaults, this is with mbox