On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:33:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> You're focused on ONE MINISCULE ASPECT of the problem, which is a
> negligible fraction of the total. As such, your points don't have any
> real impact on the discussion. Come back when you're:
>
> - Not ever getting your food from
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:33:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:57:15AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:05:50AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:09:22PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > > It's *so* easy to grow yo
Chris,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:57:15AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:05:50AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:09:22PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > It's *so* easy to grow your own vegetables.
> >
> > No one said it was hard... most of
ps - These are the two versions of the gj one I have - one might have
been tweaked by me to apply to a later version. It's pretty small; I
imagine someone who knows the mutt code-base could pretty easily figure
out how to make it apply to current.
w
--- PATCHES.orig2003-04-15 06:18:34.000
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:57:34AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> I haven't read this thread through completely because it's a bit off
> course, but I've picked up on two implemented solutions on this topic:
> a VVV patch and a Gary Johnson patch. Can someone discuss how they
> differ, whether the
* On 17 Sep 2014, Ed Blackman wrote:
>
> I'm not one of the developers of Mutt, nor am I some representative of all
> of Mutt's users. However, it seems to me that the devs and at least most of
> the users like things as they are, such that you need to know a good bit
> about email to use Mutt.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:05:50AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:09:22PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > It's *so* easy to grow your own vegetables.
>
> No one said it was hard... most of the things you pay someone else to
> do aren't (though some definitely are).
We
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:09:22PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> It's *so* easy to grow your own vegetables.
No one said it was hard... most of the things you pay someone else to
do aren't (though some definitely are). The complexity comes from the
sheer number of things, which if you had to do
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:24:31PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> The world has become complicated, and without specialization it does
> not work, period. That's why you don't build your own home,
> grow/raise/kill your own food ...
That sounds like corporate propaganda to me - i.e. they don't want
On 2014/9/17 3:40 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
-a lot of very sensible stuff, which I've snipped off-
Dear Derek,
I'd like to briefly correspond with you. I believe my address is part of
this message's message headers. If it strikes your fancy, would you
kindly drop me a line?
Ciao - Mark Filipak.
Ed,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:33:21PM -0400, Ed Blackman wrote:
> I'm not one of the developers of Mutt, nor am I some representative
> of all of Mutt's users. However, it seems to me that the devs and
> at least most of the users like things as they are, such that you
> need to know a good bit
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:24:31PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
I'm not suggesting Mutt should be just like Outlook or Firefox--it
serves a different niche (but it is indeed a niche). However I do
think that it's hard to argue convincingly that Mutt users would not
universally benefit if it handle
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:24:31PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:36:26PM -0400, Patrice Levesque wrote:
> > E-mail has become as popular as car driving.
>
> But learning how it works fundamentally hasn't. That's why the vast
> majority of e-mail users use either Outlo
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:36:26PM -0400, Patrice Levesque wrote:
> > The message is that not everyone has time to become an expert in how
> > e-mail works fundamentally, and not everyone should. In fact, just
> > about no one should. This is what specialization is all about, and
> > like it or n
* Chris Bannister [09-17-14 09:33]:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:36:26PM -0400, Patrice Levesque wrote:
> > roads; red lights, yield signs, school buses and all.
>
> Please, what is a "yield sign"? Is that what the rest of the world would
> call a stop sign, or a give way sign?
yield = allow oth
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:36:26PM -0400, Patrice Levesque wrote:
> roads; red lights, yield signs, school buses and all.
Please, what is a "yield sign"? Is that what the rest of the world would
call a stop sign, or a give way sign?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating
> The message is that not everyone has time to become an expert in how
> e-mail works fundamentally, and not everyone should. In fact, just
> about no one should. This is what specialization is all about, and
> like it or not our society has become extremely specialized.
No, I'm sorry, the spec
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:11:57PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 15.09.14 14:48, Derek Martin wrote:
> > You had to understand how it works, and configure your editor to do it
> > right. Most users do not want to do that, and they should not have to.
>
> IIUC, the message is that those user
=== Lurk-Mode OFF ===
Duck and cover!
=== Lurk-Mode ON ===
On 2014/9/15 10:09 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 14.09.14 16:29, Will Yardley wrote:
>> The problem, though, is that doing so in a tool like mutt where the
>> editor is (by design) completely divorced from the MUA does make it a
>> l
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:11:57PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 15.09.14 09:29, Will Yardley wrote:
> > Yes, but if you forget to do this, or manually mangle a line, you could
> > end up generating non-compliant text.
> >
> > My point isn't that there aren't editors that are capable of gen
On 15.09.14 09:29, Will Yardley wrote:
> Yes, but if you forget to do this, or manually mangle a line, you could
> end up generating non-compliant text.
>
> My point isn't that there aren't editors that are capable of generating
> the text correctly, but that it's difficult to mutt to know for sur
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:09:09AM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 14.09.14 16:29, Will Yardley wrote:
> > The problem, though, is that doing so in a tool like mutt where the
> > editor is (by design) completely divorced from the MUA does make it a
> > lot more difficult to properly generate f
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:09:09AM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 14.09.14 16:29, Will Yardley wrote:
> > The problem, though, is that doing so in a tool like mutt where the
> > editor is (by design) completely divorced from the MUA does make it a
> > lot more difficult to properly generate f
On 14.09.14 16:29, Will Yardley wrote:
> The problem, though, is that doing so in a tool like mutt where the
> editor is (by design) completely divorced from the MUA does make it a
> lot more difficult to properly generate flowed text.
Nope, it works fine for me, without effort of any significance
=== Lurk-Mode OFF ===
I hesitate to be drawn in... but...
See what a hot-button topic formatting is?
Will,
Do you equate quoted text with ">" characters at the beginning of lines?
Think about it. Embedding that stuff in the actual messages is dumb,
don't you agree? It could/should be handled as
On 2014-09-14, Derek Martin wrote:
> This is one important way in which the "hand some functionality
> off to another program" model falls down.
I don't think that this is a problem with that model. There is no
reason that an e-mail client should not hand off the task of editing
a message to an
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 08:20:06PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> The *real* problem is that email is a "text" function and all the fancy
> formatting is irrelevant. Sentence structure,tables and paragraphs
> suffice. And all the jump-thru-hoops to present some fancy display
> disappear.
That
* Will Yardley [09-14-14 19:29]:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 07:05:17PM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
> >
> > I created a minor civil war on the Mozilla list when I proposed that
> > text NOT be flowed at all; that it's the responsibility of the viewing
> > application to format messages to the user's
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 07:05:17PM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
>
> I created a minor civil war on the Mozilla list when I proposed that
> text NOT be flowed at all; that it's the responsibility of the viewing
> application to format messages to the user's specification; that
> formatting should NOT
=== Lurk-Mode OFF ===
I created a minor civil war on the Mozilla list when I proposed that
text NOT be flowed at all; that it's the responsibility of the viewing
application to format messages to the user's specification; that
formatting should NOT be coded within messages. Flowing and rewrapping
On 13Sep2014 23:36, Gary Johnson wrote:
On 2014-09-13, Will Yardley wrote:
I don't think the stuff_all_quoted patch has been kept up to date.
No, it hasn't. One reason is that I no longer work at the company
where mutt was my primary mail client and where I regularly received
all sorts of di
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:36:28PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On 2014-09-13, Will Yardley wrote:
>
> > I don't think the stuff_all_quoted patch has been kept up to date.
>
> No, it hasn't. One reason is that I no longer work at the company
> where mutt was my primary mail client and where I re
On 2014-09-13, Will Yardley wrote:
> I don't think the stuff_all_quoted patch has been kept up to date.
No, it hasn't. One reason is that I no longer work at the company
where mutt was my primary mail client and where I regularly received
all sorts of different mail formats including format=flow
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Óscar Pereira wrote:
>
> When hitting reply, in the editor the lines of the quoted text are shown
> like this: ">foo", but after sending the mail, the content is shown like
> "> foo". Furthermore, if when composing the reply, I change from ">foo"
> (which
Dear all,
When hitting reply, in the editor the lines of the quoted text are shown
like this: ">foo", but after sending the mail, the content is shown like
"> foo". Furthermore, if when composing the reply, I change from ">foo"
(which is done automatically) to "> foo", the end result still shows
35 matches
Mail list logo
