On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:39:21 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
VZ> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:57:55 +0200 Xavier Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
VZ>
VZ> XN> My suggestion, on the contrary, would rather be to remove the option to
VZ> XN> change the Reply-prefix, and stick with the standard 'Re: '.
VZ> XN>
VZ> XN> I would even remove the option to generate 'Re[n]: '. After all, the
VZ> XN> threading code makes wonder, doesn't it? :)
VZ>
VZ> [...]
VZ>
VZ> So, on the contrary, IMHO it would be nice to handle more reply prefixes
VZ> (i.e. for the common European languages)... Or maybe just treat any
VZ>
VZ> ^..?(\[\d+\]|\(\d+\)):
VZ>
VZ> RE as the reply marker?
Because regex are not very efficient when it is possible to write had-oc
code, I guess that we should have something like this (maybe not
presented as here, but anyway):
Compose pane option: Reply prefix (Default: 'Re', ': ' is implicit)
Sorting/Threading option: Additional reply prefixes to take into
account. A comma reparated list, like 'Aw, Awt, Ogg'.
Then the 'Reply prefix' would be both used to compose messages and to
detect answers, while the ones in the list would be only used to detect
answers.
Does it make sense ?
--
Xavier Nodet
PGP fingerprint: EFE0 0E75 C4DC 2654 5C36 4E2D 107C 19DE 0646 1FE2
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
Mahogany-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
