Subject: Re: 143686Q: Pine Collection Lists (fwd)

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:20 -0700 (PDT)

I got it by virtue of my position as a student and staff member
(supporting Pine, among other things) here at the UW.  I sent in a
question to our help system, and that's the answer I got.

I haven't heard anything on when the next version of Pine might be out.

-- 
Scott Leibrand
[email-masked]
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *

On Sun, 2 May 1999, Bino  Gopal wrote:

> Hi Scott,
> 
> THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this reply! :) It's good to know that:
> a) I wasn't imagining things, and
> b) Someone out there had an answer!
> 
> That being the case, I'm just a bit curious as to where you got this
> answer--as it was in obviously in another forum separate from this one,
> one that seems to be more receptive to questions...
> 
> Would you be kind enough to provide me with that information (as it was
> not included in the forward below)?  Thanks again--oh, any idea on when
> the next release might be, btw?
> 
> 							BINO
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: [email-masked]
> To: Pine Discussion Forum <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: 143686Q: Pine Collection Lists (fwd)
> 
> Here's the response for the Pine guys.
> 
>

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:22:59 -0400 (EDT)

Ahh, ok--I understand, and thanks again--I was wondering what code the
143686Q was for, and now I get it--I was hoping it was a resource I might
be able to use, but I guess not.

On a similar note then, know anything about why Pine queues all keystrokes
made to the console?  It didn't use to do this, and is very troublesome. I
accidentally dropped something on the keyboard one day, and sat there
helplessly for _*five minutes*_ as Pine tried to scroll down past the last
message in my folder!  The next time that happened, I just killed that
Pine session and started over.  AFAIK, this was not present in 3.95...  Is
this a bug or a new feature?

Does this also have to do with the fact that Pine is now incredibly slow
when checking message?  What I mean is, in 3.95 (again :), if I was in a
folder of 1,000 messages, I could just hold the down arrow, and it would
zoom through them, while I looked for out-of-place text.  But now, in
4.10, if I hold down the down arrow, it goes no faster than one message a
second--is this b/c it has to redraw the screen each time, and it didn't
used to (I thought I saw a post about this before)?  Or is there some sort
of "message-check-rate=n" feature I don't know about?  This is about the
only major change that I find non-optimal.

I mention these two as they seem related, and make checking large folders
a chore when they didn't use to be--not only can I not zip through a
folder of 1,000 messages, but now I have to wait for all the keystrokes to
clear up (if I held the down key down that is) before I can move to the
next folder!  A double whammy!

Anyway, thanks for all your help Scott.  Hope you have some ideas on this. 
Take care.

							BINO

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:29:40 -0400 (EDT)

Scott, when I reply to your recent messages, this is all that gets picked
up by Pine, though there is obviously more to the message...  I checked
the message in Emacs, and could find no weird hidden characters, and a
cursory examination of the headers doesn't reveal anything strange...any
ideas? The other replies I sent to yours, I just pasted in the text (and
deleted the '>' since I didn't feel like adding them by hand :).

							BINO

On Sun, 2 May 1999, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
>       by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02111
>       for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 2 May 1999 21:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from lists5.u.washington.edu (lists5.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.6])
>       by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA26758;
>       Sun, 2 May 1999 21:24:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from host ([email-masked] [140.142.56.13])
>       by lists5.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with SMTP id SAA03200;
>       Sun, 2 May 1999 18:23:55 -0700
> Received: from jason04.u.washington.edu ([email-masked] [140.142.78.5])
>       by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id SAA41344
>       for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:21 -0700
> Received: from vergil01.u.washington.edu ([email-masked]
        [140.142.12.6])
>       by jason04.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id SAA22636;
>       Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:20 -0700
> Received: from localhost (leibrand@localhost)
>       by vergil01.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id SAA49456;
>       Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:20 -0700
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
> Sender: [email-masked]  
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-To: Bino  Gopal <[email-masked]>
> X-Cc: Pine Discussion Forum <[email-masked]>
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
>

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:37:55 -0400 (EDT)

Ooops!  Ok, ignore the previous message--I should have paid more
attention!  When I noticed that everything after the "-- " was being
stripped, it hit me!:

"strip-from-sigdashes-on-reply" was enabled.  It's just that I'd never
seen it working before, and never used it, so it confused me for a
minute...  In any case, as you can see I obviously figured it out, so
ignore my inane babbling. *grin*

But my other babbling about queued keystrokes and slowness checking
messages still is valid...so don't ignore those! :)

							BINO

<HERE FOLLOWS THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE>

-----

Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bino  Gopal <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Cc: Pine Discussion Forum <[email-masked]>
Subject: Missing text in replies

							BINO

        [140.142.12.6])

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:50:55 -0700 (PDT)

> this a bug or a new feature?

	This is neithe a bug, nor a new feature.  This is NOT a Pine
feature, this is an opperating system feature.  It is possible that with
the upgrade to 4.10 other changes happened on your system.  I do doubt
that it is as major as you sugest (that it didn't used to buffer the
standard IO, and now it does), but what do I know...  

> only major change that I find non-optimal.

	This, is also a change that is almost certianly not WITHIN Pine,
but certianly could be part of the system.  I did play with using IMAP in
3.96, and it WAS incredibly slow (as you describe it), so I suspect this
is something to do with something like that...  

> next folder!  A double whammy!

	I suspect that they are related, problem 1) you notice because of
problem 2).  Problem 2) probably has been created because of a change on
how your servers are working, which also may have something to do with
problem 1 also...

							Jessica

-- 
Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701, 
LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.

List manager: [email-masked] 
     send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
               or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.

WWW: <http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8749>

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:35:59 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Jessica, 

Thanks for the response.  Comments in-line.

> standard IO, and now it does), but what do I know...  

I figured that it might be an OS thing too, though a cursory inquiry at
the time of the upgrade didn't reveal any new OS changes.  But when you
say "I do doubt it is as major as you suggest"--thrust me--it IS!  I
understand what you're saying about buffering standard IO, but it's as if
there is also a set delay introduced between the exceution of each
keystroke--it is INCREDIBLY annoying!

On another system that is still running 3.95, I can go into a folder with
lots of messages, view one, and hold the 'N' key to scroll through the
messages at lightning speed--and as soon as I hit 'I' I'm instantly in the
Index.  But on the system running 4.10, if I try that, I wait about 1
second between the next message redraws, and that's crazy!  Not only that,
but if I hold down that 'N' key, then if I decide I want to go to the
Index, I have to wait for all the queued keystrokes to go through, and you
can imagine how annoying that is--it's also pretty detrimental to
efficient mail reading, which I need for work...

> is something to do with something like that...  

Hmmm, ok that would make sense if we switched from POP to IMAP or
something, but I could have sworn that we were using IMAP already...I'm
checking with our postmasters on this (they're no good at noticing
problems as they all use MM anyway) :P

> how your servers are working, which also may have something to do with

Well, if you or anyone else has any ideas (Scott? :), that would be great!
I'll let you know if I find out anything from postmaster here...  Thank
you very much.

							BINO

---

From: Robert Larmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:16:48 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

Don't feel bad on this one.  Last week a faculty member was pasting a
short document from WP8 to Pine with two sets of -- in the main text, and
his signature happens to be 8 lines long.  Half showed up after the first
--, and half after the second --.  I'd never seen it before and couldn't
stop laughing after staring at it for a minute.  I'm a newbie when it
comes to sigdashes, so I'd only heard about it until then.

RCL

> messages still is valid...so don't ignore those! :)

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`			Robert Larmon				      `
`			PC Systems Analyst			      `
`			USC Law School Computing Services	      `
`			[email-masked]			      `
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''