Re: Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-10 Thread Michael Tatge
David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % * Michael Tatge [04/09/02 15:42:25 CEST] wrote: % Who needs urlview? % % I like using it because I hate copy'n'paste. I also don't like to idea % to use a mouse as frequently as urlview. ;-) Perhaps he should

Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-09 Thread Thomas Baker
Dear all, I have found all of the following set commands: set nomove set move=no unset move Do they all mean the same thing? Are some forms preferred? Do all set commands support such alternatives? Tom P.S. I'd be using mutt already but the native WIN32 mutt from

Re: Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Thomas -- ...and then Thomas Baker said... % % Dear all, % % I have found all of the following set commands: % % set nomove % set move=no % unset move Yep. % % Do they all mean the same thing? Are some forms preferred? Yep. Nope. % Do all set commands support such

Re: Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-09 Thread Thomas Baker
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, David T-G wrote: % P.S. I'd be using mutt already but the native WIN32 mutt from % http://www.geocities.com/win32mutt just exits on me at the prompt % without doing anything; Cygwin mutt doesn't have URLVIEW; and my So you'd rather be stuck in some other mail program

Re: Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-09 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * Michael Tatge [04/09/02 15:42:25 CEST] wrote: Who needs urlview? I like using it because I hate copy'n'paste. I also don't like to idea to use a mouse as frequently as urlview. ;-) Cheers, Rocco. msg26921/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Preferred muttrc syntax for set commands

2002-04-09 Thread David T-G
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, % % * Michael Tatge [04/09/02 15:42:25 CEST] wrote: % Who needs urlview? % % I like using it because I hate copy'n'paste. I also don't like to idea % to use a mouse as frequently as urlview. ;-) Perhaps he should have phrased it as who would