belg4...@pthbb.org wrote:
> What's the point really?
>
> Two plain text files, documented in the FILES section of install-mh.
> Don't like'em, remove them yourself? Don't know what/where they are?
> Oh well, leave them alone.
>
> This isn't really a bug, and I'm not sure why nmh should bother
>
berg...@merctech.com wrote:
> I'll add my wish-list:
>
> + minor bug fixes (for example, the NAMESZ limit that affects
> scan listings)
>
> + improved MIME handling, particularly for replies
>
> + improved attachment handling (supression(?)
> of rep
Josh Bressers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be worth looking at this and expanding on the idea:
> http://jmason.org/software/mhthread/
>
> I ran across that some time ago and played with it a bit. I like the idea,
> but it could use some refining.
See also the 3rd screenshot here:
http://
Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you decide to make these additions, keep in mind that they have to
> be done in the send code, not in the whatnow code. This is because
> the design of the attachment code was such that it would work
> independent of the user interface. In particular
K Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to see nmh survive as well, but I'm already one of those who
> migrated to another mail client (mutt) due to the increased amount of
> MIME mail. It was the multipart PGP signatures that finally did it
> for me.
As a note of interest, it's likely
