On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Stephan Witt wrote:
> I know of IMAP, but it's not free when having a GMX account. I'm using it at
> work.
> Please, don't tell me google mail has IMAP for free - I don't want to give
> away my
> privacy to google.
>
My Opera Mail [1] has IMAP, too. :) They adop
Vincent van Ravesteijn writes:
>> Me? I'm using a mail client with builtin POP3 account access.
>> I cannot see how procmail can improve my situation regarding multiple copies.
>
| Lars suggested to use some advanced client (procmail ?) to do the filtering.
I only do duplicate msgid handling wit
Peter Kümmel writes:
| On 21.11.2011 23:11, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>>> I use thunderbird, and all I know now is that I have to somehow install
>> locally
>>> a duplicate filter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I use thunderbird as well.
>>
>> And I didn't install any filter.
>>
>> Maybe its the mailserver.
Stephan Witt writes:
| Am 21.11.2011 um 09:54 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
>
>> Stephan Witt writes:
>>
>> | Am 20.11.2011 um 23:16 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
>>>
Stephan Witt writes:
| Am 08.11.2011 um 22:40 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
>
>> On 08/11/2011 22:10, Pete
Peter Kümmel writes:
[...]
>> That is just a number. How does that change anything?
>> On bad effect you will get with i a tar.gz is unwanted size
>> increase in subversion repository size. (one boost.tar.gz each time it
>> is updated.)
>>
>
| 13 updates would be the break-even.
What do you mean
Am 22.11.2011 um 22:25 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> On 22/11/2011 07:39, Stephan Witt wrote:
>> Am 21.11.2011 um 23:34 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
>>
>>> Op 21 nov. 2011 23:17 schreef "Pavel Sanda" het volgende:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> No, because you're forcing your will on
On 21/11/2011 22:42, Peter Kümmel wrote:
On 21.11.2011 11:46, Stephan Witt wrote:
I use thunderbird, and all I know now is that I have to somehow
install locally
a duplicate filter.
I guess the problem comes from gmx.net, same as Stephan actually...
Abdel.
On 22/11/2011 07:39, Stephan Witt wrote:
Am 21.11.2011 um 23:34 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
Op 21 nov. 2011 23:17 schreef "Pavel Sanda" het volgende:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
No, because you're forcing your will onto others.
While you are giving me the great opportunity to read you
On 21/11/2011 23:16, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
No, because you're forcing your will onto others. If I want to reply to
you, I don't want you to overrule me by sending my reply to the list.
:)
Vincent, you don't want to reply to me. you simply don't have email client (or
a
On 21/11/2011 22:36, Peter Kümmel wrote:
On 21.11.2011 08:51, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Actaully I would argue that he, and you. are the ones doing it wrong.
Wrong? Why?
I understand that it's not wise to force everybody to reply-to list.
But if I decide to get the reply only once and g
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:02:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Systemcall.cpp:337:65: error: inconsistent user-defined literal suffixes
> ‘__FILE__’ and ‘QTOSTRING’ in string literal
> Systemcall.cpp:337:65: error: unable to find user-defined string literal
> operator ‘operator"" __FILE__
On 22/11/2011 22:09, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 21/11/2011 23:40, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>
> And won't have, as long as the core steers the gui [ 1/2 ;-) ]
>
> Andre'
And the core will be steering the GUI as long as we can't use qt
signals in the core.
And we won't use Qt signals
On 21/11/2011 23:40, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>
> And won't have, as long as the core steers the gui [ 1/2 ;-) ]
>
> Andre'
And the core will be steering the GUI as long as we can't use qt
signals in the core.
And we won't use Qt signals in the core as long as nobody makes the
effor
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:29:44PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 21.11.2011 23:32, André Pönitz wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:53:49PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >>On 21.11.2011 21:24, André Pönitz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>First guess: gcc sees 'virtual' on two member functions but no virtual
>
On 21.11.2011 23:32, André Pönitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:53:49PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
On 21.11.2011 21:24, André Pönitz wrote:
First guess: gcc sees 'virtual' on two member functions but no virtual
destructor, cannot prove that delete operates only on static type ==
Yes, se
Now that the crash Pavel discovered seems to have been fixed, LyX 2.0.2
is once again ready to leave the station. I'm planning to do a bit more
testing the next couple days, and then I will prepare the release on
Friday, assuming there are no issues.
Has everything else that needs to go in gone i
16 matches
Mail list logo
