On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 10:29:32AM +0100, Thorsten Haude (dis)graced my inbox with:
> Hi,
>
> * Rob 'Feztaa' Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-07 23:43]:
> >On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:29:47AM +0100, Thorsten Haude (dis)graced my inbox with:
> >> >>> Speaking of why kmail is bad... does anybody know how to set up Kmail to
> >> >>> have a random signature?
> >> >> The same way you do with Mutt probably.
> >Well, this is a bit (a lot?) OT, but here is the line in my .muttrc:
> >
> >set signature="~/.random_sig/random_sig.py ~/.random_sig/my_sigs|"
> Meanwhile, I had a look at KMail: It's basically the same thing, done
> with a GUI: Enter filename and check or check not whether it's a
> process.
Eh, so I was wrong. Nobody's perfect. I still choose mutt, though.
> >(where my_sigs is a file in the same format as the fortune files, and
> >random_sig.py is a script to read that file and print a random one of
> >them. I won't bore you with the actual script, though :)
> You'd be surprised. I'm just trying to write a sigdaemon with Perl. It
> should work from a config file and should also feed more than one FIFO
> (I use some random header lines). I still struggle with the
> daemonizing though.
What's so great about daemons? I've written a few daemons or two in
python, it's not terribly difficult (maybe perl just sucks at it ;).
All I know is that my script lets me specify different files to pull
sigs from, which can be very useful, although I pull them all from the
same file anyway. There is a static part of my sig, also, and it's
hardcoded into the script. Of course, if I felt like distributing this
script, it would be trivial to code the script to be easy to customize
the static part. But I don't, and I'm not.
In other words, I don't see the advantage to daemonizing it.
> >> I'm only guessing of course, but you can tell KMail to read the sig
> >> from a process. It may even work to name a FIFO.
> >Well (in regards to my other message saying I didn't know how to do
> >this with kmail), then I guess I didn't look hard enough, eh? ;)
> It was only one of the things mentioned.
Yep, it was.
> >Still, I'll take mutt over KMail any day. Mutt is the most-featured and
> >coolest email client I've ever seen. I've never seen another mailer that
> >would let you customize your headers to the extent mutt will. I mean,
> >how many let you take the output of scripts into headers? That is wicked
> >:)
> I see you knew that one.
Backticks are your friends ;)
> >> I would use KMail if I would think it to be better than Mutt, but you
> >> can do a lot with KMail.
> >I would use whatever I thought was the best. And I do ;)
> In fact, If there would be a PMMail for Linux, I'd give it a try. This
> one was really neat.
Eh, the only mail client aside from mutt that I ever really liked was
called The Bat, and it ran on windows... it was neat, but mutt whoops it
;)
--
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"We don't want the television script good. We want it Tuesday."
-- Dennis Norden
