On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40:01PM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> Personally I think the right thing to do is to show the size of the
> message, headers and all.
I agree... The headers (for example, the subject line) also clearly
contain information which is intended to be conveyed to the
recipi
On Friday, 23 May 2008 at 16:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mutt (always has for me) made extremely inaccurate estimates of how
> big my email messages are. Often off by a factor of 5. Why is
> this? Is it maybe not mutt's fault, but the IMAP servers I interact
> with? On the one hand, I hope
Hi,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: I open my INBOX, and there's a message that mutt says is 6.3K.
I open the message, and return to the inbox. Now mutt says it's 0.3K.
It's a message with 5 words in the body and no attachments. Then, I
quit mutt, and fire it up again. Mutt says 6.3K
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 04:07:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Example: I open my INBOX, and there's a message that mutt says is 6.3K.
> I open the message, and return to the inbox. Now mutt says it's 0.3K.
> It's a message with 5 words in the body and no attachments. Then, I quit
> mutt, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, May 23 at 04:07 PM, quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Mutt (always has for me) made extremely inaccurate estimates of how
> big my email messages are. Often off by a factor of 5. Why is
> this? Is it maybe not mutt's fault, but the IMAP server
Hello,
Mutt (always has for me) made extremely inaccurate estimates of how big my
email messages are. Often off by a factor of 5. Why is this? Is it maybe not
mutt's fault, but the IMAP servers I interact with? On the one hand, I hope
it's the servers' fault, because mutt is great. On the
