On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:50:33AM -0800, Rob Reid wrote: > At 10:12 AM PST on October 31 David Yitzchak Cohen sent off: > > > > Also, if this patch is implemented by somebody who cares about doing it > > properly, it'll be an option like pgp_verbosity which you can set to 0 > > (no crap at all), 1 (only PGP output), 2 (1 + message introducing PGP > > output), 3 (2 + message terminating signed data), and 4 (3 + all PGP > > messages in stock Mutt). The advantage there is that you can then use > > all your fun hooks and/or profiles (wanna_read_mail, paranoid, etc.) to > > muck with the setting as often as you like. > > Some people might think 3 - 2 is more important than 2, etc... 3-2 is rather useless, AFAICT. What's the point of knowing the end of a signed area without the beginning (especially since the PGP output is at the beginning)??? At any rate, though, you can replace the number argument with a string of digits/letters indicating which messages are wanted, or maybe even better, a full-blown format string specifying how to display the message (not such a trivial patch, though). > Which is why > a display filter for that sort of thing seems more elegant to me - you don't > have to guess what people want. A display filter doesn't seem like the right tool for the job. We're not trying to change the display of a message per se. We're trying to get rid of some verbage that Mutt feels compelled to insert around the message. > Anyway, that isn't quite the sort of thing I thought you were thinking of. I > was thinking of minimum verbosity unless the patch/filter detects something > out of the ordinary, like only part of the message being signed, and then it > turns on full verbosity. You're asking the patch to do too much. The more side effects you incorporate into any given feature the less fine-grained control you have over the overall configuration. (If the current hooks aren't sufficient to do what you're requesting within your RC config, the "correct" solution is to add power to the hook config, not to add a feature that does some rather complex hard-coded action.) Many features in Mutt already suffer from "feature bloat." (Think: hard-coding is a Bad Thing (TM).) I'd sooner kiss a toilet bowl than add more to the list. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpMVesMf7zHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature