On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:02:41AM -0500, David Champion wrote: > If you use this feature, please take a moment to reply to this quick > survey -- preferably off-list, to me directly, so as not to spam > everyone on the list. I'll summarize after a few days. > > 1. Do you use the %X feature for $index_format (formerly $hdr_format)? I would use it, if it worked in the version of Mutt I'm currently running (some CVS from a few months ago). It doesn't appear to... > 2. Do you use the ~X feature for searching or for limiting? Hard to say if I would use this. I do use limits, so it's very possible. > ( If you answered "no" to any these questions, there's no need to reply. :) ) Any? > 4. If you use %X in your $index_format, do you primarily use it > to say whether a message has attachments ("paperclip style" -- > e.g., %?X?foo&bar?), or do you really care about the number of > attachments present? I used to have the size of the message in my index, but I decided it was not worth the extra space it required to display it, so I removed it. I would use the attachment count to get a rough idea of how big a message was... Obviously not reliable, but a fair tradeoff. > 5. If you use either of these features, have you customized your Attach > and Unattach rules in muttrc? I wouldn't be likely to. > 7. Would you consider it a loss for the attachment counter to be reduced > strictly to "paperclip style" -- that is, only indicating whether > attachments are present, with no configurability of what counts as an > attachment and without counting attachments? Yes, though I would find it satisfactory, assuming it was accurate. > 8. Would you consider it a loss for the attachment counter to be removed > completely? Absolutely. -- 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:
pgphN9LoghqHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature