* David Champion [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 11:18 -0500]:
> * "Calum Selkirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of
> > > > course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between
> > > > regexps found in various published .m
* On 2002.08.02, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Calum Selkirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course),
> > > there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps
> > > found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt
> From: "Calum Selkirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:03:20 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: mutt + pcre
i somehow missed the Sven's message, so i'm replying to this one
> * Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 13
* Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 13:57 +0200]:
> * Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-02 11:35]:
>
> > if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course),
> > there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps
> > found in various published .mut
* Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-02 11:35]:
> if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course),
> there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between
> regexps found in various published .muttrc's and
> the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected.
assumi
