On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:21:20PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:19:48PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > The filenames are cryptic and knowing their name is not generally
> > useful.
>
> The names are definitely cryptic, which is the whole point of asking
> for a way to get them from mutt... Mutt knows what the names are.
> However I would disagree that knowing the name is not useful. It is
Picky. Picky.
Yeah, that is why I said "... not generally useful."
> only not useful if you only ever manipulate your mail from within your
> mail client. There are plenty of conceivable reasons to do so using a
> plain text editor or command line tools (editing e-mail addresses
> which have changed in a list of specific messages, quoting e-mails in
> a non-email document, etc.).
>
> It may be possible to do some of these things within mutt, but it
Well ... yeah, 'ESC b' for searching message bodies.
> might be easier or more efficient to do them using other tools, if you
> are already working on a bunch of files which are not e-mails, or you
> are using other tools to work on the files directly to do things that
> can not easily be done from within Mutt. Of course, you can pipe
> messages to programs, but this is sometimes somewhat cumbersome,
^^^^^^^^^
> depending on what you're trying to do.
I remember saying something about "depending on what you're trying to
do." but it appears to have been snipped.
--
Chris.
======
" ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government
conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."
Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.
