The following reply was made to PR mutt/2190; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the view-attachments menu Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:11:03 +0100
It would take some changes to the "reply to attachment" code, and possibly some API changes internally. It's certainly feasible, but certainly not during a coffee break at a conference. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2006-03-03 13:45:02 +0100, Paul Walker wrote: > From: Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Mutt Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:45:02 +0100 > Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the > view-attachments menu > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Spam-Level: > > The following reply was made to PR mutt/2190; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: Re: mutt/2190: mutt segfaults when replying from the > view-attachments menu > Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:41:15 +0000 > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:15:03AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > > > There's a choice here: Either we can disallow ~h in reply-hooks, or we > > can disable reply-hook when replying to a message from the attachment > > menu. I'm inclined to do the former, and will commit that to CVS. > > Out of interest, is there a reason why what the submitter was trying to do > isn't possible to make work? > > -- > Paul > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
