From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/10191 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Michael Welsh Duggan" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: broken? was: horrid color choices in 5.4.25 Date: 11 Mar 1997 12:31:17 -0500 Sender: "Michael Welsh Duggan" Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035150101 22955 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:41:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA02678 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:41:52 -0800 Original-Received: from gate.usaor.net (root@gate.usaor.net [204.157.146.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:31:36 +0100 Original-Received: from maru.schenley.com (maru.schenley.com [206.62.188.70]) by gate.usaor.net (8.7.3/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA11209 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:39:26 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: by maru.schenley.com from localhost (router,SLMAILNT V2.2); Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:31:20 EST Original-Received: by maru.schenley.com from maru.schenley.com (127.0.0.1::mail daemon; unverified,SLMAILNT V2.2); Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:31:18 EST Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: savoie@fsl.noaa.gov's message of 11 Mar 1997 09:17:05 -0700 Original-Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.25/Emacs 19.32 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10191 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10191 savoie@fsl.noaa.gov (Matthew H. Savoie) writes: > > Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > > > > |> I think one can draw the conclusion that the new colors are an > > |> incomplete success. :-) > > > > Not that I don't like the new colors, but is there something new broken with > the scheme. I was meeting a friend for drinks at a local brewpub at > 8:30 and found this line to be hilighted in my *wide reply....* buffer. > Therefore: I'm not sure if this is something that can be fixed? Should be > fixed or is just strange behavior. Same thing happens in the last line of my > signature. I think the header highlighting is maybe a little too draconian. It should only be highlighting up to the header-seperator line. I don't know that this is an easy fix, however. (Actually, I suspect it is not.) -- Michael Duggan (md5i@schenley.com)