On 2018-04-23 14:25:29 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> [Then again, I made the same arguments about binutils removing the
> -[number] option to head and tail, and the maintainers went ahead and
> did it anyway. Of course, they finally realized their mistake, and PUT
> IT BACK IN.]
This is different:
Hi,
I'm scratching an itch, here. I want to limit email messages to those with
pdf attachments, or text/calendar, or images, etc. Is a merge request
on gitlab preferable to a patch like this?
Cheers,
Ammon
---
doc/manual.xml.head | 2 ++
doc/muttrc.man.head | 6 ++
mutt.h |
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:15:18PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> I'm scratching an itch, here. I want to limit email messages to those with
> pdf attachments, or text/calendar, or images, etc. Is a merge request
> on gitlab preferable to a patch like this?
Here is fine. I think it gives more peop
See attached!
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:15:18PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> > I'm scratching an itch, here. I want to limit email messages to those
> with
> > pdf attachments, or text/calendar, or images, etc. Is a merge request
> >
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 02:59:33PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> See attached!
I have few minor comments below. Otherwise it seems okay.
It seems like a useful addition, but I'd like to hear from others before
using one of our dwindling pattern letters. Does anyone else have
feedback for/against?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > diff --git a/doc/manual.xml.head b/doc/manual.xml.head
>
> > +~M EXPRmessages which
> > contain a mime Content-Type matching EXPR
> > +=M STRINGmessages
> > which contain a mime Content-Type containing
> > STRING
>
> There is no need t
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:14:27PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> > The =b/=B/=h are explicity mentioned because of their IMAP behavior.
>
> I did copy the =b/=B. I hadn't considered IMAP for this feature, as I'm
> not using it. Since we have to parse the message to match content-type,
> how would
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:14:27PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> Your new patch was too fast. :-) I realized I forgot to include one
> other comment, below. I have to run, but I'll take another closer look
> at the revised patch later ton
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:00:00PM -0700, Ammon Riley wrote:
> 3rd time's the charm, right?
I think so - this version looks good. I'll give a few days for others
to chime in.
There don't appear to be any applicable IMAP SEARCH extensions for this
pattern. I suppose we could fetch BODYSTRUCTURE,
