Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
Hi, * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org, 2010-07-14 21:01:01 Wed: How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] To clarify, I only want to omit my /home/roger/.maildir/.roger folder and not my other folders such as /home/roger/.maildir/.rog...@isp.net folder(s). I'd use grep; something like the following: find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' (Adapt the regexp depending on how strict you need to be.) -- David Haguenauer pgpX0rewUqfn6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
Hi rogerx, mutt-users, * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org [14. Jul. 2010]: How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] To clarify, I only want to omit my /home/roger/.maildir/.roger folder and not my other folders such as /home/roger/.maildir/.rog...@isp.net folder(s). How about mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h\n'|grep -v '/home/roger/.maildir/.roger$'|tr \n ` Ciao, Gregor -- -... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:06:17AM +0200, David Haguenauer wrote: Hi, * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org, 2010-07-14 21:01:01 Wed: How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] To clarify, I only want to omit my /home/roger/.maildir/.roger folder and not my other folders such as /home/roger/.maildir/.rog...@isp.net folder(s). I'd use grep; something like the following: find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' (Adapt the regexp depending on how strict you need to be.) Great THANKS! I think this one worked right out of the box, as is. I spent hours looking at man find, google, etc and none worked and I thought grep -v wouldn't work. The other email response using ['/home/roger/.maildir/.roger$'|tr \n ], I don't know about -- as to why the newline char? I think I'll post the grep -v option to the Mutt Wiki ConfigTricks! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/ pgpeTH7PqK5i6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:07:19AM +0200, Gregor Zattler wrote: Hi rogerx, mutt-users, * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org [14. Jul. 2010]: How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] To clarify, I only want to omit my /home/roger/.maildir/.roger folder and not my other folders such as /home/roger/.maildir/.rog...@isp.net folder(s). How about mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h\n'|grep -v '/home/roger/.maildir/.roger$'|tr \n ` On second try, this one actually does work! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
* Roger on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 23:12:02 -0800 On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:06:17AM +0200, David Haguenauer wrote: I'd use grep; something like the following: find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' (Adapt the regexp depending on how strict you need to be.) Great THANKS! I think this one worked right out of the box, as is. I spent hours looking at man find, google, etc and none worked and I thought grep -v wouldn't work. You can circumvent grep by find -E ! -regex, note it takes the full path, or exclude by negating -name: ! -name. Also -printf is not portable. I use something like: mailboxes `find -E ~/Mail -type d \( -name cur -o -name new -o -name tmp \ ! -regex '.*/(_|(Archive|News)/).*' \ -execdir pwd \; \) -prune | tr '\n' ' '` c -- theatre - books - texts - movies Black Trash Productions at home: http://www.blacktrash.org/ Black Trash Productions on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/blacktrashproductions
Using a remote firefox from .mailcap - how?
I used to run mutt on my desktop machine at home with the following in my .mailcap file:- text/html; /usr/bin/firefox %s text/html; links -dump %s -html-numbered-links 1; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.html With auto_view text/html in my muttrc this means that by default I got to see HTML E-Mails in my mutt pager window but I could open up the HTML in Firefox using 'v' if I really needed do. I now run mutt on the mail server machine on my home network rather than on my desktop machine, it makes life easier in several ways so I don't want to change that. Hence it runs in a terminal window via ssh from my desktop, easy enough to implement 'transparently' for most of the time. However, obviously, the /usr/bin/firefox line in mailcap doesn't work because there's no Firefox on the GUI-less mail server. What's the easiest way (if there is one) of feeding the HTML E-Mail from mutt running on the mail server into a (nearly always) running firefox on my desktop machine? -- Chris Green
Re: Using a remote firefox from .mailcap - how?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Chris G wrote: However, obviously, the /usr/bin/firefox line in mailcap doesn't work because there's no Firefox on the GUI-less mail server. What's the easiest way (if there is one) of feeding the HTML E-Mail from mutt running on the mail server into a (nearly always) running firefox on my desktop machine? There isn't. You'll need to copy the file to your local machine and then run firefox on it. And to copy it? You'd need a reverse ssh: scp $@ host:/tmp ssh host 'eval $(ps auxe | grep firefo[x] | grep -Eo '(DISPLAY|XAUTHORITY)=[^[:space:]]*' ); export DISPLAY XAUTHORITY; 'firefox /tmp/$...@##*/} And put that on a script and use that in the mailcap. -- 0/0
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:01:01PM -0800, rog...@sdf.org wrote: @#...@# find. ... anyways. How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur \( -regex '.*/\.roger' -prune -o -printf '%h ' \) Ed signature.txt Description: Digital signature
Re: URL not extracted from HTML by w3m in mutt autoview
On 2010-07-15, Erik Christiansen wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:29:34AM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote: On 2010-07-14, Erik Christiansen wrote: It's in an A tag: (I've munged some of the href's characters in this post) td height=3D60 colspan=3D3 align=3Dcenter valign=3Dmiddle= font face=3DArial color=3D#66 style=3Dfont-size:10pxa titl= e=3DView Email Online link href=3Dhttp://example.media.xyz.com.au:80/t= rack?t=3Dvmid=3D45671msgid=3D87652did=3D87641edid=3D26341sn=3D374852= 7545eid=3df...@example.stuff.neteeid=3df...@example.stuff.netuid=3D9= 56897rid=3D234564erid=3D234564fl=3Dmvid=3Dextra=3D2000eu=3D425= viewonline style=3Dcolor: #66Click here if you cannot view this = email properly/a/spanbr /=20 If the URL is embedded within an A ... tag, as this one is, then w3m will not display it. That is, in an HTML link written like this, A href=http://foo.com;bar/A w3m will display bar but not http://foo.com;. Ah, thank you. (And for improving my understanding of html.) In your original post you said that the URL was rendered as *. Did the * appear instead of Click here if you cannot view this email properly or was the * in front of Click here ...? The latter. It displays like this: * Click here if you cannot view this email properly The * is probably a list bullet, or it may be an explicit * in the text, possibly in the first column of the table of which the Click here ... message is a part. What happens if you open the attachment in the attachment menu? That will use w3m to display the message instead of just using w3m as a filter. Do you see the * as a link? Wow. It opens the link in firefox. (Do you know, I've never before considered opening the message body in the attachment menu.) It's not an attachment. The message is only text/html. (Yes, I do dump 99% of them, just not this one. :) I guess I should have been more clear and written, What happens if you open the attachment or the message in the attachment menu? I expect w3m to highlight the link but not display the URL. It automatically followed the link, opening it in firefox. I think that Firefox is displaying the message, as a result of the first text/html rule in /etc/mailcap: text/html; /usr/bin/sensible-browser '%s'; description=HTML Text; nametemplate=%s.html (I didn't look at those rules closely enough when I first read your message.) /usr/bin/sensible-browser is either a link to Firefox or a program that somehow decides what a sensible browser is in this case and opens it. If your w3m is configured to allow the use of an external browser, typing EscM on the link will open the link in the external browser. Seems like it shot right past any opportunity to do that. Many thanks for helping me understand better what's happening between mutt and w3m, to get to the browser. You're very welcome. I might just interpose a wrapper around w3m, taking your information to modify the A href=http://foo.com;bar/A to A href=http://foo.com; http://foo.com; bar/A Then I can copy-paste the displayed URL into an extant firefox instance, instead of locking up mutt until a firefox instance, opened via the attachment menu, is closed. You can get around the problem of Firefox locking up mutt by using a script that launches Firefox in the background. There's a example here: http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/#background To extract the URLs from a message, you might try urlview, bound to the Ctrl-B key in mutt by default. You could also try using lynx instead of w3m as your HTML-to-text converter. It doesn't render HTML as well as w3m, or didn't the last time I used it, but it does gather all the URLs in a message and displays them as footnotes. Regards, Gary
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion - you guys seem to have a grep obsession :-) On 14Jul2010 23:12, Roger rog...@sdf.org wrote: | On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:06:17AM +0200, David Haguenauer wrote: | * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org, 2010-07-14 21:01:01 Wed: | How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find | pipe? | | muttrc: | mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] | | I'd use grep; something like the following: | | find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' | | (Adapt the regexp depending on how strict you need to be.) | | Great THANKS! I think this one worked right out of the box, as is. | | I spent hours looking at man find, google, etc and none worked and I thought | grep -v wouldn't work. [...] | I think I'll post the grep -v option to the Mutt Wiki ConfigTricks! Maybe not. Isn't this more direct? find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -prune -o -name cur -printf '%h ' \) It also avoids regexps, which are often annoying (escaping . to \. etc). You can also speed it up greatly by pruning the search when you hit the cur or new folders, otherwise find will walk all the messages as well looking for deeper trees: find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -prune -o -name cur -printf '%h ' -prune -o -name new -prune \) which can be written: find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -o -name cur -printf '%h ' -o -name new \) -prune And are your maildirs all at the top level, or are they deeper? If you have a nested tree structure (I do - my old archived email is in subtrees) you need find. But if it is just a flat directory (.maildir/a, .maildir/b) you don't need find at all! Just use echo! echo ~/.maildir/* or for name in ~/.maildir/*; do case $name in */.roger) ;; *) echo $name ;; esac; done Which should be faster than find (no directory tree walking at all). Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Every particle continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line except insofar as it doesn't. - Sir Arther Eddington
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:37:33AM -0400, Ed Blackman wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:01:01PM -0800, rog...@sdf.org wrote: @#...@# find. ... anyways. How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find pipe? muttrc: mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur \( -regex '.*/\.roger' -prune -o -printf '%h ' \) Nope, /home/roger/.maildir/.roger still gets by this incantation as well! Yea, tried the \( \) and !, not the regex until now, but they all allow /home/roger/.maildir/.roger to get by except for the one post here en stating the newline char at the end of it's incantation. I always though find to be finicky at times. :-/ (As they say, Do one thing well... and let something else handle the other issues.) -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:05:15AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion - you guys seem to have a grep obsession :-) On 14Jul2010 23:12, Roger rog...@sdf.org wrote: | On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:06:17AM +0200, David Haguenauer wrote: | * rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org, 2010-07-14 21:01:01 Wed: | How can I exclude one folder from my mailbox list using a find | pipe? | | muttrc: | mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` [...] | | I'd use grep; something like the following: | | find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' | | (Adapt the regexp depending on how strict you need to be.) | | Great THANKS! I think this one worked right out of the box, as is. | | I spent hours looking at man find, google, etc and none worked and I thought | grep -v wouldn't work. [...] | I think I'll post the grep -v option to the Mutt Wiki ConfigTricks! Maybe not. Isn't this more direct? find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -prune -o -name cur -printf '%h ' \) Yup. This incantation works as well! It also avoids regexps, which are often annoying (escaping . to \. etc). You can also speed it up greatly by pruning the search when you hit the cur or new folders, otherwise find will walk all the messages as well looking for deeper trees: find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -prune -o -name cur -printf '%h ' -prune -o -name new -prune \) which can be written: find ~/.maildir/ -type d \( -path ~/.maildir/.roger -o -name cur -printf '%h ' -o -name new \) -prune And are your maildirs all at the top level, or are they deeper? If you have a nested tree structure (I do - my old archived email is in subtrees) you need find. But if it is just a flat directory (.maildir/a, .maildir/b) you don't need find at all! Just use echo! echo ~/.maildir/* or for name in ~/.maildir/*; do case $name in */.roger) ;; *) echo $name ;; esac; done Which should be faster than find (no directory tree walking at all). Cheers, Every particle continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line except insofar as it doesn't. - Sir Arther Eddington The rest is interesting, yup, no subfolders here. It's interesting how the obvious solutions stare us blankly in the face. I have been using echo (per wiki), but completely overlooked a for/next incantation, grappling with find. Cheers! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
* rog...@sdf.org rog...@sdf.org, 2010-07-14 23:26:53 Wed: On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:06:17AM +0200, David Haguenauer wrote: I'd use grep; something like the following: find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h ' | grep -v '\.roger/' I just tried both of these, and they don't filter using the grep -v. If I'm not mistaken, find within the above incantation, finds every dir with a subfolder named cur, as such, the grep -v filter is simply ignored ... because find already passed every folder on one line instead of multiple lines with a newline at the end of each folder. Absolutely. I guess that shows how hard I tested my code before posting it ;o). I'm sure you have found a command that actually solves your problem by now. -- David Haguenauer pgpAPdMuZC9bo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Using Find, Exclude one mailboxes folder
On 15Jul2010 15:03, Roger rog...@sdf.org wrote: | On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:05:15AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: | for name in ~/.maildir/*; do case $name in */.roger) ;; *) echo $name ;; esac; done | | Which should be faster than find (no directory tree walking at all). | | Cheers, | | Every particle continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight | line except insofar as it doesn't. - Sir Arther Eddington | | The rest is interesting, yup, no subfolders here. | | It's interesting how the obvious solutions stare us blankly in the face. I | have been using echo (per wiki), but completely overlooked a for/next | incantation, grappling with find. It's worth noting that the above for loop needs to use: ~/.maildir/.* because plain * won't match .roger, since it starts with a dot. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ A Guru is not one who simply knows all the answers. Rather, a Guru is like one who walks among the mountains, and by wandering around abit, can see the horizon through long narrow canyons.
