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"
