On 2004-07-11 16:32:09, Thomas Roessler wrote: > > I want to know why he has been ignoring some posts while he has > > been replying to some other posts. > > Mostly because I can't devote as much time to this as I would like > to. I'm sure this is true. But the mutt devel team sometimes doesn't do a good job of addressing patches that are offered. For example, I've been trying to get my pgp-auto-decode patch included for almost two years, without a single word of response from anyone capable of including it. This patch addresses a deficiency[*] in mutt's user interface, and is in use by probably thousands of people (it's included in at leas some releases of Debian's mutt package, as I understand it), so people clearly want this functionality and it's well-tested -- I have received only two reports of problems with the patch, which turned out to be either problems in mutt or configuration issues. I see no obvious reason for its exclusion. If you're not going to include a patch, a little feedback as to why would be nice... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [*] The nature of the deficiency is that anyone who often receives traditional PGP messages must manually decode them, when mutt is fully capable of automatically detecting them. Computers are supposed to make the user's life easier, not more tedious. When work can be easily automated, it should be... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgpgJnHktodZR.pgp
Description: PGP signature