On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:24:21PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2003-12-16 05:41:14 -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: mar 16 dic 2003 05:35:05 EST) --] > > I don't suppose that's what you mean. If you can tell me what version > > still had the old workaround, I'll take a peek. (If it was before 1.2.5i, > > it was before I started using Mutt.) > > That is what I meant. See $crypt_timestamp. Ah, okay, now everything starts to make a little more sense. (I'd been wondering what was up with Mutt, that it insisted on telling me the time. . .) > > Just out of curiosity, what was deemed wrong with the previous > > workaround? > > It required a non-obvious check by the user. Discerning colors is > generally much easier and quicker than checking a time stamp. Hmm ... checking a timestamp is a _lot_ easier than looking at colors if you're a display_filter, though :-) Basically, Mutt can stick to generating the old timestamp, but the pager can interpret the timestamp and do colors or whatever based on its findings (possibly via a default display_filter script/program). This allows people who want the cool colors and everything to keep their config as-is (the pgp_color_filter can even read the user's .muttrc file for its settings), while leaving the door open to anybody who wants to do some fiddling without having to deal with all sorts of fake ANSI escape sequences (!!!) in his filter. (An advantage of having functionality encapsulated in separate programs rather than simply toggled by an option is that you can then have your own display_filter call the pgp_color_filter at some other point in the "scheme of things." You're not tied down to anything hardcoded.) - 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:
pgpdsjqIjMjqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature