Re: Compiling a newer version than the latest .deb package

2019-06-04 Thread Frank Watt
On 4/06/19 1:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote: Frank Watt wrote: |You seem to be on x86_64 (or amd64 as debian calls it), so unless |you are building as 32-bit you don't need any of these. | |The -dev versions include headers, so you need those to compile, the |more-basic versions are only the librar

order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Nicolas Rachinsky
Hallo, I just noted the entry in UPDATING: ! Fcc now occurs after sending a message. If the fcc fails, mutt will prompt to try again, or to try another mailbox. This seems to be: https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/commit/e106487b1f4ebe7128982486accec11ac6f54b5c Does anybody know the reason o

Re: Compiling a newer version than the latest .deb package

2019-06-04 Thread Christian Brabandt
On Di, 04 Jun 2019, Frank Watt wrote: > > > On 4/06/19 1:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Frank Watt wrote: > > > > > > |You seem to be on x86_64 (or amd64 as debian calls it), so unless > > > |you are building as 32-bit you don't need any of these. > > > | > > > |The -dev versions include header

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Ben Boeckel
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > I considered the previous order (save to fcc, then send the mail) > always the correct one. If anything bad happens (network connectivity > failing (in case of imap), computer crashing,...), it seems to > produce the better outcome.

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Jack M
On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > Hallo, > > > I just noted the entry in UPDATING: > ! Fcc now occurs after sending a message. If the fcc fails, mutt will > prompt to try again, or to try another mailbox. > > This seems to be: > https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/commit/e106487

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Kevin J. McCarthy
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: Does anybody know the reason of this change? The most recent discussion on mutt-dev was . The issue is contentious, and there are arguments on both sides. In this case, t

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > the user has no idea whether the mail was actually sent or not How could the user not know? If the send fails, mutt prints a

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Francesco Ariis
Hello Grant, On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:46:50PM -, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > > the user has no idea whether the mail

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Jack M
On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > >> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but >> the user has no idea whether the mail was actually sent or not >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

2019-06-04 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: >> >> >>> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >>> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but >>> the user has no idea whethe