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