Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread John Franklin
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 01:53:34PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2000-03-01 23:09:22 +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: > > > One way to make things clearer would be to have sections like > > > [colors] > > [keybindings] > > [mailboxes] > > [lists] > > [folder_hooks] > > You are completely free to c

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Dave Pearson
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:09:22PM +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: > One way to make things clearer would be to have sections like > [colors] > [keybindings] > [mailboxes] > [lists] > [folder_hooks] This seems to work on the assumption that all ~/.muttrc files are one large monolithic list of settings

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Chuck Dale
Wrote Eugene Lee on Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 04:50:09AM -0800: > I don't know if this division of labor will work for all but the most > simplest configurations. An example would be a complex set of folder > hooks where colors, key bindings, save hooks, and other settings. > Now imagine you had diffe

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Chuck Dale
Wrote Matthew Hawkins on Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:46:58PM +1100: > On 2000-03-01 23:09:22 +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: > > > > > > The problem (as I see it) is that .muttrc goes against the principles > > which Mutt is following. Particularly in modularisation. The .muttrc > > contains absolutely eve

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Thomas Roessler
On 2000-03-01 23:09:22 +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: > One way to make things clearer would be to have sections like > [colors] > [keybindings] > [mailboxes] > [lists] > [folder_hooks] You are completely free to create a set of configuration files, and then source them. For instance, create a very

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Eugene Lee
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 11:09:22PM +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: : : : :The problem (as I see it) is that .muttrc goes against the principles :which Mutt is following. Particularly in modularisation. The .muttrc :contains absolutely everything configurable in the program - it defines :the interface (ke

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Matthew Hawkins
On 2000-03-01 23:09:22 +1100, Chuck Dale wrote: > > > The problem (as I see it) is that .muttrc goes against the principles > which Mutt is following. Particularly in modularisation. The .muttrc > contains absolutely everything configurable in the program - it defines > the interface (keys, colu

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Chuck Dale
> They *are* settable within the interface. Just type ":set " > (and keep repeating pressing tab until you get to the setting you want > to change). :-) Of course it won't save the settings > > Anyway, all silliness aside, what's different from doing the changes > "within the interface" as

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Telsa Gwynne
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 10:13:41AM +1100 or thereabouts, Chuck Dale wrote: > Wrote Mikko Hänninen on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:34:37PM +0200: > > If you ask me, I wouldn't use sendmail as a newbie's MTA, the beast is > > not for the faint at heart. > > And the ironic thing is that sendmail is prett

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-03-01 Thread Martin Keseg - Sun Slovakia - SE
Mikko Hänninen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > > You can actually get by with *no* .muttrc, pretty much everything in > Mutt has reasonable defaults. When I was starting with mutt I just get Sven's config, edit hostname and headers and run mutt. When I needed to change something I look into docum

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-02-29 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Chuck Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 01 Mar 2000: > Sure, keep the software modular, but that doesn't mean you have to have > really mean documentation. As sendmail is the default with all > distributions I can think of, Debian uses Exim. :-) > include links for it and for qmail and > Po

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-02-29 Thread Chuck Dale
Wrote Mikko Hänninen on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:34:37PM +0200: > This would probably benefit from having more explanation of the mail > sending process in the Mutt docs. I don't agree that Mutt should give > specific pointers to sendmail documentation, because even though > sendmail is the curren

Re: Happy Little Vegemite

2000-02-29 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Chuck Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 01 Mar 2000: > 1. Sendmail configuration > This was one that got me for a while. Having always used web based email > clients or clients with their own SMTP stuff in them, my sendmail has > been badly configured at home for at least a year. The mutt hel

Happy Little Vegemite

2000-02-29 Thread Chuck Dale
Dear Mutts, You've got one happy Mutt convert here. At least for the moment. After half a day grappling with getting things configured nicely I like it. I had two main gripes with getting Mutt going. I'll give some recommendations for how I see the user experience could be made easier. Please d