On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:21:17AM EST, Stephen wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:24:29AM -0500 or thereabouts, David Yitzchak Cohen > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:03PM EST, Stephen wrote: > > IIRC, Claris Emailer didn't do threading, so it could care less about > > getting the IRT or references headers right. You can do the same in > > Mutt with a small filter, like metamutt, but set up to read Yahoo!'s > > digest format instead of the digest format used in Mutt lists (ezmlm?). > > > > Actually, I *think* it did. There were several versions of Emailer, (I'm > referring to the commercial client, not the free lite version). > Maybe not true threading, tho. It's been 5 years, anyway, since I last used > Emailer. I don't even remember the last time I used it, but it must've been ages ago. > It was considered one of the better of all the GUI clients, I don't > recall it having any issues with reference headers. Maybe it did "threading" based solely on the subject and/or quoted text? > > > Thing is, I couldn't get this to work. Anyone have suggestions, and > > > should it in fact work? > > > > As I said, I don't know if metamutt was designed to work with > > Yahoo! Groups. . . > > OK, but I can't get it run, What happens when you try running it? > so don't know if it's bursts Yahoo mail > properly. ...then for all we know, it may already handle Yahoo! Groups digests right out of the box. . . > Yahoo seems to use two double lines to show the end/start of a > new message, in their digests. ...in which case the above wouldn't matter much for our purposes :-) (I don't use any digests anyway, so I only see digests when people here reply to a digest post and leave the whole freakin' digest dangling below a "Mutt users wrote:" ... yes, Mutt users wrote all (well, that's not always true - we sometimes get people PINEing or Outlooking here, asking silly questions that they wouldn't have if they just RTFMed a tiny bit - at least Mutt's introduction, dude!) of the below, you dummy! Why do you think the list's called "Mutt Users' List?") > > > I understand that Emacs will do this quite handily. ;) > > > > Yeah, emacs will do everything but your dishes, since after all it > > contains everything but the kitchen sink. However, a minor problem is > > that emacs is also a really good /dev/null(4) emulator (implemented in > > pure EMACS LISP, of course - a language that knows the value of everything > > but the cost of nothing) for system resources, so your CPU can quickly > > sink into obsolescence. Seriously, though, did somebody bother to get > > emacs parsing Yahoo! Groups digests correctly? > > Yeah, I've heard the 'Kitchen Sink' argument invoked often in Emacs/Vi > discussions. ;) You know the world's already gone way crazy when the most popular VI clone looks and feels more like emacs than like VI. (Well, yes, it's Vi IMproved - of course! That'd expain it. Now, can I please have my unimproved BSD-clone (as I found out recently on this selfsame list, VI was invented by BSD, not AT&T) VI back ... PLEASE? With my latest hosting providor, I found an annoying "no" to be RedHat's answer (Bad RedHat! Can't you gimme some Slack, dude?). Fortunately, though, my editor of choice doesn't take up too much of my quota.) <message type="subliminal">Elvis rocks!</message> - 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:
pgpOhOxSGDeD5.pgp
Description: PGP signature