On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:42:42PM +0100, Ainsley Pereira enlightened us
thusly
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:18:15PM +0100, Declan Moriarty wrote:
> > I actually only got 3/4 way with this. Here is the relevant chunk:
> >
> > set from="Declan Moriarty"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> send-hook inbox
> > my_hdr from: "Declan Moriarty"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> send-hook
> > blfs my_hdr from: "Declan Moriarty"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> send-hook
> > chipdir my_hdr from: "Declan Moriarty"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> set
> > envelope_from=yes
> >
> > So when I change to the blfs mailbox and press 'r' to reply to a
> > message I get [EMAIL PROTECTED] But if I were to press 'm' for new
> > mail, I'd get the wrong address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Having
> > replied to one mail, I seem to be OK. Whassup?
>
> I think this is because mutt doesn't consider new mail to have
> anything to do with the folder being displayed, as opposed to a reply
> to a message in a specific folder.
That's clever of it, isn't it? These programs that try to think for a
luser always get things wrong.
>
> You could instead try doing the my_hdr on the folder-hook, so that
> it's done when you change into that folder, rather than on replying.
I tried it on the folder hook, and the mailbox, but it doesn't work. It
is thrown out as illegal syntax
> As you know, I don't do this myself, so I am not sure whether it would
> work. (I rarely start threads, so haven't bothered investigating this,
> but let me know if it works:) )
I start plenty of threads - how would I find out otherwise? But I ask
interesting questions. The guy in the mutt manual seems to think that
all of us going to use nfs to mount mailboxes hidden in exotic places.
--
With best Regards,
Declan Moriarty.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
