On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:05:52 +0800 Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course if there is a design reason why claws-mail can no longer, > like Sylpheed, handle non-synchronized modification times, that is fair > ball. But if there is no such good reason, then something was lost in > the fork from Sylpheed to claws-mail that perhaps should be restored. Of course there is a good reason. There were no losses in the fork from sylpheed, only gains. best regards Paul -- It isn't worth a nickel to two guys like you or me, but to a collector it is worth a fortune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
