Eric, et al -- ...and then Eric Smith said... % % > I must apologize for spacing out there; I apparently didn't pay any % > attention to the Subject: line and failed to note that you wanted to save % > two copies of the outgoing email. % Don't worry I figured ...
*grin* % > % For those wishing to implement this - % > % I did it this way ... % > % saves copy of all mail sent _with mutt_ to the.outgoing % > % folder. Better (for me), than procmail matching on any From % > % header. % > % > That seems pretty elegant, actually; not a bad idea. FWIW, this has come % > up on the list a few times before and the closest we got (with existing % > functionality) was to wrap sendmail and save the copy there in order to % > trap the bcc: headers in both (or as many as you want!) copies. % % Yeah I brought up a previous thread re Fcc-ing to all recipients % of a mail -another thing on my wishlist and very important in % userland. Yeah. % % I do not touch sendmail.cf and am in no mood to start really. I don't blame you! :-) % % Yeah the solution that is put together above works but % its wasteful: % You have to send the mail (with Bcc) and fire sendmail and % procmail or whatever. Agreed. % When you (I anyway) edit the outgoing, you have two extra - % annoying - headers to stare at. Well, you can always ignore those away :-) % % - much better to do all this type of functionality without % firing anything but your current mutt instance which just has % to write to your local folders. % I really believe that this type of functionality could % easily - I aint a C programmer :( - be implemented % in mutt itself I agree, but the interesting part would be how to define it. Currently fcc-hooks are matched from top to bottom, with the last taking precedence. At the very least, I expect that would have to turn inside-out in order to allow for multiple fcc-hook definitions to allow you to point to multiple folders. I can imagine a setting that says "save this message to the folders of all recipients", or perhaps "to all To: recipients", as a stopgap, but what I'd really want is the ability to define arbitrary targets -- something like, say, only three of the ten recipients -- and that sounds like a trickier can of worms. I think filesystem-based mail is probably not the answer anyway (but see my other idea idea utilizing a single large Maildir and multiple user- and list-based Maildirs which really just symlink back into the master), because you end up with duplication in this sort of layout. In addition to the multiple folder formats it now supports, mutt should talk to an interface that will allow you to put a database behind it and store your mail in there; you then have full relational capabilities at your disposal and can SELECT across any slice you wish. I ain't a C programmer, either, though :-) % % BTW, people can drop the 'c' in the ':0 c' above % (I had it in there cause I was testing from myself to myself. % % > Maybe I should just be quiet now :-) % % Not at all. Hey, thanks! % % -- % Eric :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg21719/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
