On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:22:13PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:45:42AM +0100, Andre Kl?rner wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:04:38PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> > > Two questions about variable width fonts, then
> > >
> > > First, how does Mutt do with variable wi
hi，
everytime I need to shift-g to receive mail by mutt manully , which is not
convenient, so is there method to enable mutt receive mail automaticlly？
if it can remind me about new mail ,I think it is the best client tool !
thanks!
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:45:42AM +0100, Andre Klärner wrote:
>
> So in most cases I have seen the terminal that renders the fonts is putting
> each character in a cell, so you get no benefit from using a variable width
> font, despite that it looks ugly in most cases. So I have come to the
> con
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 08:22 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
> Ok, but if variable width is such a good thing, using the twisted logic
> that's been posted in this thread, every possible environment either
> supports it or it's crap...right? So it should even be supported by
> Mutt on a VT-100 terminal.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:45:42AM +0100, Andre Kl?rner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:04:38PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> > Two questions about variable width fonts, then
> >
> > First, how does Mutt do with variable width fonts? I gather that it does
> > handle them, but how? My versio
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:04:38PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> Two questions about variable width fonts, then
>
> First, how does Mutt do with variable width fonts? I gather that it does
> handle them, but how? My version (1.5.21, according to "mutt -v")
Well, as mutt is a CLI application it
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:47:46PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> BTW, sending a variable width format allows for 72 character
> rendering, so these dated ergonomics studies are not at odds with an
> unwrapped source text anyway.
Two questions about variable width fonts, then
First,
On 23Nov2012 10:42, John Long wrote:
| On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:40:33PM +0100, Richard wrote:
| > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:42:27PM +, John Long wrote:
| > > My mutt on Linux has been locking up lately. I didn't compile it with
debug
| > > support. Is there any way to figure out why this i
On 2012-11-23, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:17:27PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
>> > At this time, the generally accepted assumption is to wrap at around
>> > 72--76 characters
>>=20
>> Right.. one million smokers can't be wrong.
>
> It's been pointed out that this n
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete.
> Of course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain,
> 72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that
> audience is a smaller and smaller p
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:17:27PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> > At this time, the generally accepted assumption is to wrap at around
> > 72--76 characters
>
> Right.. one million smokers can't be wrong.
It's been pointed out that this number comes from scientific studies
regarding the
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 03:43:21AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> > Interesting, considering that Unix doesn't use CR/LF ... it uses a single
> > newline instead. So I suppose that means that the entire e-mail, from
> > the "From " li
[ Peter Davis Wrote On Fri 23.Nov'12 at 14:27:23 GMT ]
> This will be my last comment on the subject, since straying off
> topic is, I think, a worse transgression than top posting or using
> long lines. I apologize for prolonging this. I'll try to be as
> explicit as I can, to clarify my views on
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> Apparently you're unaware of the last 30 or 40 years of human
> factors and usability research, or the fact that other people are
> using computers besides a bunch of ivory tower geeks who think users
> will follow whatever strictures a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:09:17AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >
> > Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> > line.
>
> Interesting, considering that Unix doesn't use CR/LF ... it uses a single
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 02:37:57PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 21 Nov 2012, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> > line. If the first "line" of a paragraph appears at the bottom of the
> > screen as yours did then mutt display
On 11/22/12 9:57 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
.snip.
Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
product.
You're absolu
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:40:33PM +0100, Richard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:42:27PM +, John Long wrote:
> > My mutt on Linux has been locking up lately. I didn't compile it with debug
> > support. Is there any way to figure out why this is happening? I sometimes
> > lock up in the mid
[ David Champion Wrote On Sun 18.Nov'12 at 16:32:32 GMT ]
> This is a quick hack and untested beyond the basics, but feel free to
> work from it. It is, or should be, a complete reimplementation of
> Gary's script in Python.
>
> #!/usr/bin/env python
>
> import os
> import sys
> import time
>
Hi Christoph!
On Mi, 21 Nov 2012, Christoph Möbius wrote:
> Also sprach Bernard Massot am Mi, 21 Nov 2012 um 00:18:09 +0100:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:37:11PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> > > Note the corners: periods on top, and ` ' on the bottom. IMHO, this
> > > looks better. But that IS
20 matches
Mail list logo
