Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the view-attachments menu
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2190; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the view-attachments
menu
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:11:03 +0100
It would take some changes to the "reply to attachment" code,
and possibly some API changes internally. It's certainly
feasible, but certainly not during a coffee break at a
conference.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2006-03-03 13:45:02 +0100, Paul Walker wrote:
> From: Paul Walker <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>, 352357@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:45:02 +0100
> Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the
> view-attachments menu
> Reply-To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Spam-Level:
>
> The following reply was made to PR mutt/2190; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: Paul Walker <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the
> view-attachments menu
> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:41:15 +0000
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > There's a choice here: Either we can disallow ~h in reply-hooks, or we
> > can disable reply-hook when replying to a message from the attachment
> > menu. I'm inclined to do the former, and will commit that to CVS.
>
> Out of interest, is there a reason why what the submitter was trying to do
> isn't possible to make work?
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
>