Hi David,
> % Can we make a user-configurable option out of it, please???
>
> Maybe I should just stay out of this since I neither codee contributions
> or control the source, but it seems that, while the behavior may seem
> incorrect, that mutt probably ought to behave like most other mailers
Andy --
...and then Andy Spiegl said...
%
% > Perhaps your patch should be included in the standard distribution as a
% > user-configurable option?
% Great idea. I don't remember if I already suggested that or not.
% But let's give it a try: :-)
%
% Can we make a user-configurable option out
> Perhaps your patch should be included in the standard distribution as a
> user-configurable option?
Great idea. I don't remember if I already suggested that or not.
But let's give it a try: :-)
Can we make a user-configurable option out of it, please???
Thanks,
Andy.
--
Dr. Andy Spiegl,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Andy Spiegl wrote:
> > I hope I can make this clear, when mutt modifies a file (mbox) it
> > doesn't update the timestamps.
> Sure, I know this problem very well and started a long thread about this,
> but in the end I was told that it's not a bug, but a feature. I still
> d
Hi Felipe,
> I hope I can make this clear, when mutt modifies a file (mbox) it
> doesn't update the timestamps.
Sure, I know this problem very well and started a long thread about this,
but in the end I was told that it's not a bug, but a feature. I still
don't understand why and keep thinking t
* Felipe Contreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [28-12-2001 17:33]:
| Hi,
|
| I hope I can make this clear, when mutt modifies a file (mbox) it
| doesn't update the timestamps.
|
| Mutt 1.3.24i (2001-11-29)
|
| Any idea?
I'm sorry; you didn't ;)
Give it another shot...
--
René Clerc
Hi,
I hope I can make this clear, when mutt modifies a file (mbox) it
doesn't update the timestamps.
Mutt 1.3.24i (2001-11-29)
Any idea?
