According to help page "s" key binded to decode-save. The problem
is mutt always trying delete original message after save. How to avoid
such behaviour?
--
/4625 () кампания ascii ribbon - против писем в html формате
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - против проприетарных вложен
* 4625 on Friday, February 05, 2010 at 03:06:43 -0800
> According to help page "s" key binded to decode-save. The problem
> is mutt always trying delete original message after save. How to avoid
> such behaviour?
Use , bound to "C" by default.
c
--
Was heißt hier Dogma, ich bin Underdogma!
[ W
5-Feb-2010 числа в 11:12 часов, Christian Ebert написал(а) следующее:
> * 4625 on Friday, February 05, 2010 at 03:06:43 -0800
> > According to help page "s" key binded to decode-save. The problem
> > is mutt always trying delete original message after save. How to avoid
> > such behaviour?
>
> U
On Thu 4, Feb'10 at 8:07 PM -0800, Morris, Patrick wrote:
Some of us are fans of the interpretation of the Unix philosophy that
includes gluing together a lot of small, purpose-built apps into a greater
(albeit sometimes messy and convoluted) whole.
I agree with this for the most part. Sett
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:02:10 -0500 -=
> One could certainly write a utility to parse the headers and
> display them. However, the final action that one takes with the
> selected output is not to pass it off to a program of your choice
> based on mailcap, but to send another messa
On Fri 5, Feb'10 at 5:28 PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
Well, you want an automated processing, not writing "regular" mail
where you type something. You don't need a MUA for that, you can go
directly to te MTA.
Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks for that.
Though, there are
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:32:59 -0500 -=
> Though, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the
> body of the message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you
> can send to some list addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
I do, but the interfaces vary, so ... I just
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:50:02PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> Isn't this a problem of packaging, not a problem of architecture
> or philosophy?
It should be evident from the large amount of traffic on this list
that it is not. If you've been here long enough, you see the same
threads over and
=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 4.Feb'10 at 17:44:08 -0600 -=
> But when you have a requirement that things that are complex be
> done outside the app, it means:
>
> - It's not seamlessly integrated into the user's experience
> - Users need to engineer their own solutions
> - Invariably, many pe
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -=
> If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone
> willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical
> reason for such an exclusion; not simply "duh, Unix philosophy!!"
It's resource efficiency: I don't want t
I'm replying to this thread even if is a little bit OT.
I've discovered today a mutt behaviour and I want to share with you.
If you want to forward a message with an attachment, in mutt you can:
- set the variable mime_forward and have the forwared message (plus
attachment) sent attacched to the
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:23:10PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> =- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -=
>
> > If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone
> > willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical
> > reason for such an exclusion; not simply
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
> C-code
Not *all*... just the ones that make sense. The Unix Philosophy
doesn't preclude maintainers from using their brains to decide what
features do or don't make sense. D
'Evening, Derek
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
> by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
> of proposed features.
Why do you link _against_ C libraries? Surely you
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
> > by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
> > of proposed features
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 14:39:24 -0600 -=
> The Unix Philosophy doesn't preclude maintainers from using their
> brains to decide what features do or don't make sense. Dogma does.
Can't you imagine that there is actually some "brains" behind that
dogma?
I'm all against mindless d
On 2010-02-04 09:10 -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
> I think that's because push actually pushes those commands onto a
> stack which mutt subsequently pops. Try putting them in this order
> instead:
>
> folder-hook infested 'push ! ~f annoy...@gmail.com'
> folder-hook .'push ~A'
Bin
17 matches
Mail list logo
