Subject: PATCH: Packing the addresses

From: "Denis N. Antonioli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:01:57 +0100 (MET)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hi,

I've submitted once a patch to pack more than one address on a line when
displaying e-mails with pine 4. Here it is again, adapted to version
4.10.

This patch adds a new configuration option, 'pack-address-headers', to
the section [ Advanced User Preferences ] of the setup.

when the option is unset, pine writes one address pro line,
when the option is   set, pine packs as many addresses as possible
						  pro line.

Greetings,
	dna

- -- 
  The key is the software industry, which employs many highly educated,
  well-paid workers to (a) design software and then (b) try to figure
  out how come it doesn't work.
    -- Dave Barry, "Cue Alan Greenspan"

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:41:10 -0500

Author:	"Denis N. Antonioli" <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:01:57 +0100 (MET)
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> when the option is   set, pine packs as many addresses as possible

I would hope that this patch, now with a user-configurable setting, would be  
rolled into future PINE releases, since it allows (but does not prescribe) a  
change in behavior which is desired by many (I believe, from previous  
conversations on-list).

TjL

---

From: ASHWANTH FERNANDO <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:42:45 +0000 (IST)

please forgive me.I am a novice, I do not understand what you have
written. Please seek help from PINE. aSHWANTH.

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 15:11:29 -0800 (PST)

Pine 4.10 already does pack more than one address per line. Versions
4.00-4.02 did the one address per line thing, but since 4.03 we've gone
back to multiple addresses per line.

-- 
Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Networks and Distributed Computing, Univ. of Washington, Seattle

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Denis N. Antonioli wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: latin1
> 
> iQCVAwUBNrrBmn7lXFr6ofWlAQGTgQQAoxZ9SIAADcD+5dT7vNdSyPHd/5J3MV1O
> wL2dU5PVcdDtBPjLplUa6dhCahE0Hxv0pBcLXasUO5IqdBXCzHWrykDn2DnHiXTD
> WmYqvDtbDnO9C7IqdHbPksYw7jA7JzNSSAVxMmp9OlqQUxVzDqOowSlS8o9YXmlU
> xgFholr//uU=
> =DBmN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: Shawn Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 19:47:50 -0500 (EST)

Steve,

I think the consensus is to make it a user option, if its at all possible.

-- 
    Shawn Jeffries
    [email-masked]

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:50:56 -0800 (PST)

I don't remember anybody arguing for the one-per-line style. We changed it
to one-per-line and several people were upset. We changed it back and
nobody was upset. If the number of people who want one-per-line is really
small, we should leave the option out.

---

From: "Denis N. Antonioli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:21:11 +0100 (MET)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> small, we should leave the option out.

Well, I've users here that actually liked the 'one address per line',
that's why I've made an option out of it, back then, instead of disabling
it, which would have been easier ;-)

	dna
- -- 
  You gain prestige not by what you sell nor by what you buy, but rather
  by what you freely give away to others, and how beautiful and useful
  that thing is.
    -- Tom Christiansen in <[email-masked]>