On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:46:07PM -0800, Owner of many system processes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Eisenbud wrote: > > $hide_missing only hides the leading message if they can sensibly be > > hidden. > > sorry... one more thing: > > messages that have an asterisk (ie mutt is guessing based on subject > line or whatever) seem to be showing up with a '?' after the asterisk, > even in a thread that's new. > > obviously the '?' makes a bit of sense, (since we dont _know_ if there > were other messages in this thread), but isn't this what the '*' denotes > in the first place? having both is a bit visually distracting....
Here's the deal: the asterisk means that the message was attached by subject. The question mark denotes a missing reference. So if a message has an in-reply-to: header referring to a message not in the mailbox, its arrow will end with ?->. Mutt then, as before, tries to attach the message by subject, which if it does, will result in an arrow like `*?->. Having both tells you that there's a missing parent of the current message, and that there were no more references so the message was attached by subject. If there's no in-reply-to header, the parent might well be in the mailbox, but mutt has no way of knowing, and the arrow just looks like `*>, as it did before. This is not a bug. > anyway i understand now basically what the purpose of the '?'s is... > however i do think it will confuse people switching from earlier > versions. it confused me at least. so maybe at least put a prominant > notice about this in the release notes (i didn't see one) so that people > don't think mutt is broken. Agreed! -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms." --Henry David Thoreau, "Walking"