* F.Baubetm" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [991117 18:05]:
> Another quibble from an EEL (ex-Elm lamer ;-)
> Elm always had a flag in the main display that told me a file had an
> attachment, and when I viewed the message, there was a notice there too.
> Mutt doesn't seem to do this, and I've missed attach
Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this was done as you'd see the flag on almost all mails - even
> thought they'd only have just a single one which might just be
> text/plain.
What I remember is that, as more mailbox formats were being added
(IMAP), it became clear that Mutt coul
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 05:42:08PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> What I remember is that, as more mailbox formats were being added
> (IMAP), it became clear that Mutt couldn't always get all the
> information needed in order to display the flag. That is, you'd have to
> pretty much scan the fold
Surely sendmail reeled when thusly spake Sven Guckes:
>
> > Elm always had a flag in the main display that told me a file had an
> > attachment, and when I viewed the message, there was a notice there too.
> > Mutt doesn't seem to do this, and I've missed attachments :-(
>
> Mutt once did this -
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 17:59:04 +0200, F.Baubetm" wrote:
> Some attachment types are widespread, but just glorified Signature
> files -- like vCards -- or auto-handled -- like PKI. Flagging them
> would just add clutter.
>
> Anything else is worth noting, though. (Except maybe those dopey
>
