Re: [ANNOUNCE] mutt 1.5.16 released
On 2007-06-16 18:46:01 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Unfortunately this was already the case: one *needs* to write a wrapper
> > to avoid invalid sequences or unprintable characters to be given to the
> > editor. And this is much more complicated than writing a script to set
> > the exit code to 0.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. I have been using Mutt for
> 8 years, on 3 different operating systems, and have never needed such
> a wrapper script. I have written (partial) messages in 5 languages
> (English, French, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese), and can read
> messages in any language that my system has support for.
The problem is not what you are writing, but what you are replying
to. If you receive always messages with correct headers and a body
in the character set declared by the header, then that's fine for
you. But I've received several messages with invalid UTF-8 sequences
(e.g. ISO-8859-1 messages declared as UTF-8) or non-printable
characters (in the zone 128-159), and Mutt doesn't do any clean-up.
> > Also the .mailcap (to view attachments with external tools) also needs
> > programming knowledge.
>
> No it doesn't. My mailcap has no code in it whatsoever. Just simple
> command lines (which is not code). Typing the name of a program with
> arguments is not the same as writing code.
You don't know what you're talking about. This simply doesn't work.
I'd like to see your mailcap for viewing a PDF under Mac OS X...
> Besides which, even if it were necessary, Unix machines normally have
> system administrators, especially in places where the end users are
> neither system admins nor programmers. All that is needed is a
> sysadmin with half a clue to create a system mailcap that works for
> everyone.
So, the sysadmin could also solve the problem with vi...
> It's really quite remarkable, but virtually everything you have said
> in the ten messages you've written in this thread since I've been
> paying attention has been false. What wasn't was mostly irrelevant,
> and some of it was both.
You're really stupid to write that.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)