Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
[RFC 822 says there's no net-wide standard HTAB size] On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 04:09:01PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: > That's what makes it a "de-facto" standard. No, that does not make it a standard of any kind - in fact, it suggests that not even a de facto standard existed. A de facto standard is, by definition, a universally accepted convention which does not have the weight of a de jure standard. If a de facto, network-wide definition for a tab size were available in the early 1980's, don't you thing the RFC 822 authors would have codified it in RFC 822 as a part of the de jure standard? The fact that they didn't, suggests that no de facto standard was available. > Unfortunately, no standards, even de-facto ones, are universally > implemented because there are people who (often rightly) believe > that they're junk. Oh? When there are true standards, either de facto or de jure, usually /everyone/ who wants to interface with the universe implements the standard. However, if they think a standard is junk, they also implement a better system, as an /alternative/ to the standard. > Yay for ^H versus DEL :) This is different. ^H versus DEL has no relevance to the problem of interfacing with the universe. Tab size has, as this discussion shows. Antti-Juhani -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups (unknown origin)
Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 05:38:32PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: > > The "de-facto standard Internet tab size" has always been 8 characters. > > Always? The 1982 standard for ARPANET¹ email (RFC 822) explicitly > states in Section 3.4.2 that there is no nework-wide standard tab size > and so the use of HTAB is discouraged. That's what makes it a "de-facto" standard. Unfortunately, no standards, even de-facto ones, are universally implemented because there are people who (often rightly) believe that they're junk. Yay for ^H versus DEL :) Have fun, Avery
Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:26:06PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 02:36:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 06:10:09PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > Well, maybe. I find config menus to be infuriating. elm's config files > > > don't seem to have an awful lot of flexibility either. I have > > > similar problems with the `tin' newsreader, which I otherwise like. > > > > The single worst thing about tin is its license. I tried slrn but it needs > > a lot of help in the screen and default key binding department. > > > > Whoever heard of not being able to use j/k to move up and down? Must have > > been written by some emacs zealots. :) > > doh! i only just switched to mutt a month or so ago. didn't realise that > j and k were bound to next/prev message. good, that frees up up and down > arrow for scrolling the message up and down (the one thing i miss from > pine). > I won't ask how you missed that :) Thats one of the things I really like about mutt - the fact that you can bind any keys (and combinations) to anything you like, commands or macros. Just look at a sample config file and press ? more often :) Chris -- -- The box said "Windows 95, NT or better" .. so I installed Debian Linux -- Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key. KeyID 0xA9E087D5
Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 08:57:07PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote: > The "de-facto standard Internet tab size" has always been 8 characters. Always? The 1982 standard for ARPANET¹ email (RFC 822) explicitly states in Section 3.4.2 that there is no nework-wide standard tab size and so the use of HTAB is discouraged. Antti-Juhani ¹ ... known as Internet to us newbies ... -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups (unknown origin)
Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
On Jan 17, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would go for mutt, because it means people are actually using it and >finding the bugs. (AND the bugs are going to be fixed, 12+3=15 resolved >bugs in the last 28 days). And many of those bugs are feature requests. After adopting mutt in september I inherited about 60 old bugs from the previous maintainer and since then I've been able to close more than 40 of them with the help of the author (who uses debian). Many of those bugs can't be reproduced and I don't know if the have been fixed. -- ciao, Marco
Re: make mutt the `standard' mail reader
hi Ship's Log, Lt. Bruce Sass, Stardate 170199.0055: > number of bugs in ...elm-me+ pinemutt > --- [...] > --- --- --- > 2 5 44 > > Which one(s) would you look at if you were going to stake your > reputation, or a portion thereof, by recommending a `standard' > piece of software? So writing a bug report is an insult? It just meens that mutt user are concerned in the development of the program. Windows has also no outstanding bugs ... (or has it ? :) IIRC dpkg is one of debian's most bugiest programs, but, that's only my opinion, only because nearly everyone is interestenin developing it. One has to relate numbers like this always to the nummber and kind of ppl using a certain prg. That's always the problem with statistics. Greetings -- Alexander N. Benner - Christen im Internet - http://www.christen.net/ pgp : E7BCBEBD 53 5F 48 0A 0D 3E 4A 38 A8 11 B1 AF BE 08 C8 B0 MegaHAL: In John, Jesus is said to be Zerg.
