On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:45:07 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:33:11AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > > On Monday, 2019-06-24 18:41:56 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > > > Or just remove it. If it's not accurate (or even if it is) what value > > > > can it really provide? > > > > > > Even if it isn't accurate it gives me a rough idea about the size of the > > > message (usually after viewed already which calculates the value),
I agree. OTOH, I have received messages with large one-liner HTML attachments which obviously seemed small. Or people write plain text paragraphs without breaking lines ... > > There's already %L for that (size of the message), which should always > > be precise, and serve this purpose better. Just saying... > > Sorry, I'm not entirely awake yet. That's not what %L does... It > shows the size of the currently displayed messages in the index menu. %c is what shows the size of the message in the index. The advantage with %l is that its number of digits is log10, so by the number of digits, you can quickly glimpse the magnitude of the size. While it's nice that %c automatically reduces to k/M, it's hard to see the difference between 1.3k and 1.3M at a quick glimpse across the index. Cheers, Moritz