Alas! John Buttery spake thus:
> So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there
> doesn't seem to be one.
It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word "standard"; it's
more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the
early days of USENET (mayb
--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alas! Shawn McMahon spake thus:
> perl -e "fork while true":-)
Note to self: load averages in excess of 300 aren't healthy. ;)
--=20
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAI
* Thomas Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04- 1 02:52:00 +0100]:
>* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>^ The problem with using just '>' is that the quote string merges with
>the text and becomes difficult to disinguish, not only for users, but
>for reflowing algorithms which often have to pu
Hello Everyone,
I have been using mutt for abour 4 years now. Very happy with it I
must say. Anyways, my system adminstrator had just updated mutt to
1.3.24i (2001-11-29) and since then, everytime I send a message either
a forward, reply or even a new message, I get the following message
when I h
* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]:
> >NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this,
> >especially you David. ;-)
^ The problem with using just '>' is that the quote string merges with
the text and be
* Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]:
>NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this,
>especially you David. ;-)
Well, I just did some googling and found a bunch of sites about quote
characters; none of my attempts at searching the RFCs turned up
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-28 06:47:02 -0500]:
>...and then Simon White said...
>% Are you on the way to fixing it, or do you need help? I'm starting to feel
>% sorry for your poor script, since I just got mine working OK...
Yes, it's on its way sort of; I know what I did that bro
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 04:41:57PM -0500:
>
> the message is signed, excellent! Totally valid in the court of law ;-) Bah,
> will not be necessary: be sure to bring with you your curriculum, specially
> your best Perl script. :- Over and out.
Here:
On 03-31-2002 at 12:24 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards.
Plonk!
> > College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida
>
> Don't make me drive over there and smack you; it's only about 20 minutes
> from Maitland. :-
On Mar 31, Guilherme Menegon [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I already have "set pop_delete=yes" (that is why i do not leave messages
> on server). And yes, fetchmail can disable UIDL easily (set no uidl), but
> i like mutt and wanted a one-prog solution...
Mutt doesn't try to be a one-prog solutio
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:24:20 +0200
> From: Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: disable UIDL -> fetchmail?
>
> * Guilherme Menegon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 19:02]:
> > My POP3 server does not support UIDL (unique ID
> > listing) and because of that mutt can not fetch my
>
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:05:22AM -0500:
>
> :- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so?
RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards.
If you don't think so, stop using MIME, because it hasn't been adopted
as a Standard yet, despite bein
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 07:29:06AM -0800, David Ellement wrote:
> On 020331, at 16:23:09, James Greenwood wrote
> > However the problem is still there - on the mailbox I tried,
> > pine still sees 102 messages and mutt sees only 3.
> >
> > Any other ideas?
>
> Perhaps formail could reformat the
On 03-31-2002 at 09:11 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What standards are you talking about?
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
:- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so?
> Hope this clears up the confusion.
It was never a confusion, just a wrong statement: yours. ;-
On 020331, at 16:23:09, James Greenwood wrote
> However the problem is still there - on the mailbox I tried,
> pine still sees 102 messages and mutt sees only 3.
>
> Any other ideas?
Perhaps formail could reformat the mailbox:
formail -d newmbox
--
David Ellement
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 05:21:36AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * James Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 17:05]:
> > I have recently switched from Pine to Mutt and I have several mailboxes
> > that open fine in Pine but not in Mutt. Mutt seems to concatenate some
> > of the messages toget
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:54:39AM -0500:
>
> > Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
> > X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled.
>
> What standards are you talking about?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
On 03-31-2002 at 05:48 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like
> > every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that.
>
> Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
> X-Mailer is not
begin quoting what Martin Karlsson said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:27:45PM +0200:
> Seems you haven't compiled mutt with support for compressed folders.
GAR. Thanks, that was it. Some days you're the windshield, and some
days you're the bug.
msg26440/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-31 06.52 GMT -0500]:
> I applied the "compressed folders" patch, and it seemed to work.
>
> mutt -v shows:
>
> Mutt 1.3.28i (2002-03-13)
> Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others.
> Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type
I applied the "compressed folders" patch, and it seemed to work.
mutt -v shows:
Mutt 1.3.28i (2002-03-13)
Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others.
Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'.
Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under
begin quoting what David T-G said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:34:59PM -0500:
>
> ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like
> every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that.
Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
X-Mailer is not
22 matches
Mail list logo
