On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:32:33PM +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23:19AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
changed my 'reply_regexp' by adding [ \t]* before the color per
Cameron's suggestion, and replied to it. Mutt removed the RE :
and replaced it with Re
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:09AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
There's no whitespace before the colon in the above pattern, so it
won't match RE :.
Try:
set reply_regexp=^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg)[ \t]*:[
\t]*)+
You can see I've added [ \t]* before the colon
On 2009-11-23, Nicolas KOWALSKI n...@petole.demisel.net wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:09AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
There's no whitespace before the colon in the above pattern, so it
won't match RE :.
Try:
set reply_regexp=^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg)[ \t
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23:19AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
changed my 'reply_regexp' by adding [ \t]* before the color per
Cameron's suggestion, and replied to it. Mutt removed the RE :
and replaced it with Re: , as it should.
So there's something else broken in my config. I will search
On 21Nov2009 23:20, Nicolas KOWALSKI n...@petole.demisel.net wrote:
| On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM +0100, Michael Wagner wrote:
| I have this in my muttrc and it works:
|
| set reply_regexp=^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg):[ \t]*)+
|
| Thanks for your reply.
| Well, I just
Hello,
Sometimes I receive mail replies with the RE : original subject
string as subject. This RE : is apparently not recognized by the
default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of mail,
mutt add another Re: in front of the subject line; furthermore, the
threading
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 07:29:18PM +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
Hello,
Sometimes I receive mail replies with the RE : original subject
string as subject. This RE : is apparently not recognized by the
default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of mail,
mutt add
* Nicolas KOWALSKI n...@petole.demisel.net 21.11.2009
Sometimes I receive mail replies with the RE : original subject
string as subject. This RE : is apparently not recognized by the
default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of mail,
mutt add another Re: in front
Hei hei,
My understanding is that threading has nothing to do with the subject
line. If it did threads couldn't be hijacked. What am I missing?
Maybe the following mail headers: Message-ID, References and In-Reply-To.
Greets
Alex
--
»With the first link, the chain is forged. The first
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:48:30PM -0700, RobertHoltzman wrote:
My understanding is that threading has nothing to do with the subject
line. If it did threads couldn't be hijacked. What am I missing?
Check out strict_threads in the muttrc manual.
--
Monte
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM +0100, Michael Wagner wrote:
* Nicolas KOWALSKI n...@petole.demisel.net 21.11.2009
Sometimes I receive mail replies with the RE : original subject
string as subject. This RE : is apparently not recognized by the
default reply_regexp value, because
' ]---
folder_hook . 'set strict_threads=yes; \
set sort_re=yes; \
set
reply_regexp=^(re([\\[0-9\\]+])*|aw|RE):[ \t]*'
snip
folder_hook
strict_threads=yes; \
set sort_re=yes; \
set
reply_regexp=^(re([\\[0-9\\]+])*|aw|RE):[ \t]*'
snip
folder_hook .ML_electronic.Microchip'set strict_threads=no; \
set sort_re
Hi Michelle!
On Do, 23 Apr 2009, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Now I can not get the regexp to thread this pigs:
What exactly has the reply_regexp to do with threading?
117 - 2,5K 2009-01-31 16:31:35 [mc-forum] Counterfit copy of nic
118 - 2,0K 2009-01-31 16:43:01 [mc-forum
Magnus Bodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 11/09/2001:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly
different than mutt's.
mutts regexp == POSIX?
Is it gnu or classic Henry
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Magnus Bodin (dis)graced my inbox with:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly
different than mutt's.
mutts regexp == POSIX?
Is it gnu or classic
Hi,
I would like to know why a regular expression like
'^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\]
*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*'
does not work in mutt. I tested it using perl and it worked perfectly
matching the list and the Re: part of the
Robson Braga Araujo wrote:
I would like to know why a regular expression like
'^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\]
*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*'
does not work in mutt.
If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. So
.
If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. So just
write re instead of [Rr][Ee]. Maybe this helps you to find the
error.
I know, I wrote it in perl to test and then cut and pasted it in muttrc.
But that's not the reason it isn't working.
Does anybody know a better regex
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:08:30PM -0300, Robson Braga Araujo (dis)graced my inbox
with:
If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. So just
write re instead of [Rr][Ee]. Maybe this helps you to find the
error.
I know, I wrote it in perl to test and then cut and pasted
with the subject Hello would come back with a subject
of Re: Hello (See Notice Below), which doesn't get recognized as a
reply to my original message by mutt. The last time I asked about this,
about three years ago, I was told that there was no way to create a
reply_regexp to handle
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 05:39:29AM -0700, David T-G wrote:
specifically (yes, it's a really good time to be able to say
set BASE_REGEXP='^((blah blah ...'
folder-hook linux set reply_regexp \[linux\] $BASE_REGEXP
folder-hook other set reply_regexp \[OtherList\] $BASE_REGEXP
or some
Or
([Rr][Ee]):
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:29:24PM +0200, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
hello,
how can I set reply_regexp to accept re: and Re: and RE: ?
(re|Re|RE):
or just make it case insensitive.
--
[EMAIL
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 08:53:49PM +0100, Josh Huber wrote:
Is this necessary? I'm using:
set reply_regexp=
'^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*'
and it's threading mailing lists of this type for me...
for example:
[ruby-talk:7097] Rubyize this method
[ruby-talk
gexp which finally works for me is now
set reply_regexp=
'^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?((re([\\[0-9\\]+])*|aw):[ \t]*)?+[ \t]*'
That's interesting, because the one I posted works fine for me, and
the default mutt reply_regexp doesn't do what you suggest:
Default: "^(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[ \
Moin,
On 00-12-18, Josh Huber wrote:
[-- PGP-Ausgabe folgt (aktuelle Zeit: Mon Dec 18 19:26:05 2000) --]
gpg: Unterschrift vom Mon 18 Dez 2000 17:59:07 CET, DSA Schlüssel ID 6B21489A
gpg: FALSCHE Unterschrift von "Josh Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --]
That would be:
gpg:
ist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: special reply_regexp
Mail-Followup-To: Laurent Pelecq [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mutt User List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:37:41AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote:
Hi,
in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would lik
ven if you construct a reply_regexp that matches "[ifc-ml:] Re: ",
mutt still can't identify the parent message because the base subjects
don't match: mutt is looking for a parent message whose subject is
"base subject", but the subject of the parent message is actually
"[
of
mutt to recognize this sort of mangled subject. Perhaps "we" could add
a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to
ignore when threading messages.
Is this necessary? I'm using:
set reply_regexp=
'^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*'
ore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to
ignore when threading messages.
Is this necessary? I'm using:
set reply_regexp=
'^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*'
and it's threading mailing lists of this type for me...
for example:
[ruby-talk:709
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:37:41AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote:
Hi,
in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would like
to sort the msgs as threads.
With the default reply_regexp this does not work, because the mailing
list always puts a string "[ifc-ml
Hi,
in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would like
to sort the msgs as threads.
With the default reply_regexp this does not work, because the mailing
list always puts a string "[ifc-ml:] " at the beginning of the subject
line of each msg. is an increas
French versions of Lotus Notes put a 'Réf. :' as a reply
marker. It seems I cannot handle it with reply_regexp. Could this be
because the 'é' is encoded in the header ? Maybe mutt should do the
checking against decoded headers.
--
Erwan DAVID| Domaine de Voluceau
Trusted
Daniel González Gasull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
set reply_regexp="^((re|aw):[ \t]*)+"
but it don't works fine for messages with "Re: Re: "
in the Subject:. I think the value of the variable is
correct. Isn't it?
Yes, it is correct.
BTW, I use Mutt 0.93.2i.
W
34 matches
Mail list logo
