On 26/05/20 07:20,
Kevin J. McCarthy put forth the proposition:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:45:55AM +0100, Dave Wood wrote:
> > I hope it's OK to post this here rather than in the Mutt Users list.
>
> Yes, this is the right place to post.
>
> > I noticed that in 1.
e64-current/source/n/mutt/
(The files that may change any time after I write this)
Thanks,
--
Dave
n't use folders at all, and instead do some
categorization with tags in subject lines (I have a custom build that
does this dynamically by calling Lua functions), so my workflow is
probably a bit weird.
-Dave Dodge
earch boxes.
-Dave Dodge
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> EXIT_FAILURE, which has the value 1 under Unix.
That's not strictly required by POSIX/UNIX, but is certainly the most
likely value.
-Dave Dodge
, it's probably safe to assume that
most others also find $folder sufficient. If that's the case, I don't see any
reason not to reduce bloat by leaving $imap_home_namespace nuked.
Just my two cents,
- Dave
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:20:51AM +, Dave wrote:
> > So
Slackware. I no longer use UW-IMAPd, so I can't confirm.
- Dave
BTW - Has anybody heard from Steve? He's either ignoring my emails, or not
getting them, or not noticing them, or something. . .
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 06:06:47PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> I'd like to y
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:59:13AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2007 at 17:46, Dave wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:05:41AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 27 March 2007 at 17:04, Dave wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 1
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:05:41AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2007 at 17:04, Dave wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:00:05AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/ed804d94676a
> > > changeset: 5003:ed804d94676a
&
EXTRADIST to fix out-of-tree builds from
> tarballs (and
...and what? ;-)
- Dave
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:34:51PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:45:37PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > I'd counter that a sysadmin who installs software should do a
> > background check to ensure that the thing isn't riddled with
> > securi
; user.
I think we all missed that "you" in the quote isn't just the user. "You"
there also refers to the sysadmin ("rm -rf /" as root, for example),
and by extension, to the distributor. Also, we've already noted the
cost differential between run-time and configure-time options, which
makes it impractical to have everything run-time configurable.
- Dave
>
> This reminds me of a quote by Doug Gwyn:
>
> UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things,
> because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
That's the general idea. What's stupid for one user is the best way of doing
things for another.
- Dave
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-03-25 08:31:46 +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 04:11:35AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Now, if software writers make bad decisions, that's the fault and
> > > respon
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 04:11:35AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-03-22 16:34:44 +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2007-03-21 15:35:18 +, Dave wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:49:45P
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:12:41AM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:06:04PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > If it only takes a millisecond to figure out why I'm wrong, why don't you
> > spend the millisecond and post the results? I spent a few milliseconds
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:36:16PM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:52:24AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > That's why they want clear, simple programs, that do clear, simple
> > actions, without a long config file that by default makes decisions for
> >
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:53:08PM +, Ian Collier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:52:24AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > Check this out:
> > $ cat --version
> > cat (coreutils) 5.2.1
> > Written by Torbjorn Granlund and Richard M. Stallman.
> >
> > Copy
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:41:55AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-23-07 02:40]:
> [...] much verbosity removed
> > Anyway, I'm off to the DC. Peace.
>
> You should fit right in, maybe not even be noticed. Lots of smoke!
I act
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 06:25:27PM -0700, William Yardley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:45:20PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> This thread is making my head hurt.
Sorry about that ... may I suggest a cup of orange juice?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:45:20PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > I've already explained several times that the user doesn't own the
> > system. The physical user is governed by the owner of the system.
>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:13:06AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:52:24AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > > ...and users never do things they're not supposed to, and always
> > > follow all the rules, and all of the world's jails are completely
>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 06:21:18PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > > And what if users have different wishes?
> >
> > I've already explained several times that the user doesn't own the
> > system. Th
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:15:45PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Dave 2007-03-22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > How does an extra list increase verbosity on Mutt-Dev???
>
> It does so right now.
By that logic (i.e., by the logic of "Pat complained about Dave trying to ge
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:29:51PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-22-07 12:22]:
> > Adding another instance of an existing system isn't "introducing
> > complexity to a simple system." Going from 2N to 3N isn't an increa
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-03-21 15:35:18 +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:49:45PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > But a *compile-time* option would be a bad idea, as the one who
> > > installs the sof
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:27:46AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-22-07 08:36]:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:26:15AM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > >
e watching (and participating in) the fun.
- Dave
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:18:52PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:32:55PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:02PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > this is silly. everbody makes mistakes.
> >
> > That doesn'
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:59:20PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:35:18PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > How about runtime options having two shadow compile-time options,
> > default-blah and force-blah? Normally, a sysadmin would only set
> > default-
loser to what he wants than to what I want, AFAICT.)
- Dave
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:38:15PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:57:25PM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> > This thread seems to be getting a bit personal in places. Can people
> > please keep th
I'm an idiot.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:35:18PM +0000, Dave wrote:
> Remember,
> Derek's solution to the security problem is to install as many boobietraps as
> possible between an invader and a vulnerability, and it's trivial to show that
> his solution, while
I Second.
- Dave
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 02:57:25PM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> This thread seems to be getting a bit personal in places. Can people please
> keep the discussion related to mutt (or at least security)...?
>
> --
> Paul
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 03:51:02PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:27:10AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > otoh, most users *are* idiots (yes, even the unix users -
> >
> >
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:49:45PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-03-21 00:27:10 +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:28:36AM +, Dave wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2
more about a program can read the docs, and flexibility is only
enhanced by having more options. The only legitimate reason to limit options is
to limit developer load. I don't see any reason to force users to use runtime
options for something that can be implemented in an orthogonal way as a
compile-time option (say, by having a compile-time option for the default value
of a runtime setting).
- Dave
pect for the user "mindless dogma," and certainly not
"largely irrelevant mindless dogma." "Respect for the user" doesn't mean
deciding that the user wants you to take away his free choice in the name of
alleged security.
> and
> you know it.
It's impossible to know something that's wrong.
- Dave
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:00:00PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:28:36AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > Look, if the user doesn't care, that's his own choice. We're
> > programmers, not policemen. If you want to force the user to follow
> &
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:28:36AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:51:37PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > I'd also really like to see a configure option for mutt refuse to
> >
Warning: This post is quite long.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:51:37PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 08:44:44AM +0000, Dave wrote:
> Sigh. If you've lost patience with this thread, and you don't want to
> read my long post, but you do still care ab
uggestion is to give users (and package maintainers, for that
matter) the opportunity to configure Mutt any way they want, but to have the
default behavior be the only correct behavior: to honor the user's wishes, since
POSIX (unlike our friend Bill) says that the user is the boss.
Just my pair of rusty pennies,
- Dave
tart using a replacement master
> secret key for mailkey generation without implicitly invalidating
> mailkeys generated with the old key.
> 10) It should be possible to 'petname' individual keys in order to keep
> track of keys used for introduction by peers.
If you control your own domain, aren't there systems that satisfy those
requirements already available, that are implemented in the server layer, rather
than at the client end?
HTH,
- Dave
42 matches
Mail list logo
