On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:53:44PM +, Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > With an attitude like that it's not surprising that you're confused
> > about what I've been saying. Read what I've actually said, look for the
> > reasonable reas
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:53:44PM +, Dave Pearson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:16:25PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
>
> > Dave, you may stop reading. The rest will only bother you and further
> > waste your time.
>
> With an attitude like that it's not surprising that you're confuse
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:16:25PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> Dave, you may stop reading. The rest will only bother you and further
> waste your time.
With an attitude like that it's not surprising that you're confused about
what I've been saying. Read what I've actually said, look for the
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:10:46PM +, Dave Pearson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:34:03PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:07:58PM +, Dave Pearson wrote:
> [...]
> > it's not only me who wants mutt to behave that way, i guess. if it was not
> > the inten
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:34:03PM +0100, Heinrich Langos wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:07:58PM +, Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > It would appear that we have different definitions of "accessed" and
> > "modified". My copy of mutt shows me when an mbox has been modified, not
> > when it has
first for the important part:
while reading the source to find a place to put Brandon Long's "folder
count" patch. i've found a configure switch named "--enable-buffy-size"
that seems to solve the detection issue. i only browsed through the
source since it was quite late, but it seems to read
