Re: Mails received as attachment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Viktor Rosenfeld blurted I just tested the patch, it applies correctly except for some language stuff. I'll send Dale a mail about that. Hmmm... Got my clean version (27i) and I can't do it :-( I fear my education is lacking. Might I enlist a liitle help? Here's what I'm doing and getting from inside the untarred mutt dir: $ patch --dry-run -i ../dales_patch-xxx patching file PATCHES patching file init.h patching file muttlib.c patching file pgp.c patching file protos.h patching file send.c can't find file to patch at input line 147 Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: - -- |--- mutt-1.3.26/doc/muttrc.man Fri Jan 18 12:29:26 2002 |+++ mutt-1.3.26/doc/muttrc.man Sun Jan 20 09:03:14 2002 - -- File to patch: and that's where I'm stuck, I've tried -p0 and -p1 instead of -i but no joy. Can you see what mistake I'm making? Many thanks - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8Vm6LHpvrrTa6L5oRApykAJ48GESgmbtn+idxrZwTyb6JaHUOiACggtew pLI5wZovi+QWZCpmsiRPAfc= =0RiO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: rewriting message stautus
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:38:45PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: Yeah, you can do some great stuff with that. My own settings do the following: Sounds great, maybe you could send part of your muttrc responsible for such colors? -- _.|._ |_ _. | Adam Byrtek, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_|||_)| |(_| | gg 1802819 |
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: from inside the untarred mutt dir: $ patch --dry-run -i ../dales_patch-xxx [snip] can't find file to patch at input line 147 Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? [snip] and that's where I'm stuck, I've tried -p0 and -p1 instead of -i but ^^ Not instead of. You need both. patch -p1 -i ../dales_patch-xxx msg23950/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mails received as attachment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: from inside the untarred mutt dir: $ patch --dry-run -i ../dales_patch-xxx [snip] and that's where I'm stuck, I've tried -p0 and -p1 instead of -i but ^^ Not instead of. You need both. patch -p1 -i ../dales_patch-xxx Hmmm... Thanks Jeremy, that's getting results, unfortunately it's failing on each hunk? - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8Vr9PHpvrrTa6L5oRAvgwAKCECsPPK/Ks35XAjtBjuoOvLTCD6ACfZEmX MhCk8L84bFm89b8/vQ2oGk0= =KxMm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: rewriting message stautus
On Jan 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:38:45PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: Yeah, you can do some great stuff with that. My own settings do the following: Sounds great, maybe you could send part of your muttrc responsible for such colors? Heh, here. There are some comments at the top about the verbosity of the way it's done. Also, if you pay attention to the colors specified you'll notice the bright ones aren't in the same format as the others... this is because I changed the behaviour on mine to use inverse for bold background so that I can get some more colors than I could otherwise. ### Index coloring. These are all much more specific than they need to be ### since only the last matching will have an affect, but hopefully that will ### get fixed at some point. Being able to have attributes cascade would ### also make this all easier in general. # regular new messages color index black white ~N !~T !~F !~p !~P # regular tagged messages color index default white ~T !~F !~p !~P # regular flagged messages color index default red ~F !~p !~P # messages to me color index yellow default ~p !~N !~T !~F !~P color index default yellow ~p ~N !~T !~F !~P color index yellow white ~p ~T !~F !~P color index yellow red ~p ~F !~P # messages from me color index green default ~P !~N !~T !~F color index default green ~P ~N !~T !~F color index green white ~P ~T !~F color index green red ~P ~F # messages which mention my name in the body color index yellow default ~b \[Bb]losser[ @]\ !~N !~T !~F !~p !~P color index default yellow ~b \[Bb]losser[ @]\ ~N !~T !~F !~p !~P color index yellow white ~b \[Bb]losser[ @]\ ~T !~F !~p !~P color index yellow red ~b \[Bb]losser[ @]\ ~F !~p !~P # messages which are in reference to my mails color index magenta default ~x shade.firinn.org !~N !~T !~F !~p !~P color index default magenta ~x shade.firinn.org ~N !~T !~F !~p !~P color index magenta white ~x shade.firinn.org ~T !~F !~p !~P color index magenta red ~x shade.firinn.org ~F !~p !~P # messages to root, etc. color index blue default ~C \(root|postmaster|abuse|mailer-daemon)@\ !~N !~P !~p color index default blue ~C \(root|postmaster|abuse|mailer-daemon)@\ ~N !~P !~p # messages from known aliases (requires dgc.isalias) color index cyan default @~f . !~N !~T !~F !~P color index default cyan @~f . ~N !~T !~F !~P color index cyan white @~f . ~T !~F !~P color index cyan red @~f . ~F !~P # messages from my wife color index brightblue default ~f mywifesemail !~N !~T !~F color index brightblue brightwhite ~f mywifesemail ~N !~T !~F color index brightblue white ~f mywifesemail ~T !~F color index brightblue red ~f mywifesemail ~F # bigass messages color index red default !~N ~z 10240- # deleted messages color index brightblack default ~D msg23952/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Hmmm... Thanks Jeremy, that's getting results, unfortunately it's failing on each hunk? What output? msg23953/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mails received as attachment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Hmmm... Thanks Jeremy, that's getting results, unfortunately it's failing on each hunk? What output? Here ya go .. patching file PATCHES patching file init.h patching file muttlib.c patching file pgp.c patching file protos.h patching file send.c patching file doc/muttrc.man Hunk #1 succeeded at 2415 (offset 11 lines). patching file po/ca.po patching file po/cs.po patching file po/da.po patching file po/de.po patching file po/el.po patching file po/eo.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3168 (offset -1 lines). patching file po/es.po patching file po/et.po patching file po/fr.po patching file po/gl.po patching file po/hu.po patching file po/id.po patching file po/it.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 2. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej patching file po/ja.po patching file po/ko.po patching file po/lt.po patching file po/nl.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej patching file po/pl.po patching file po/pt_BR.po patching file po/ru.po patching file po/sk.po patching file po/sv.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej patching file po/tr.po patching file po/uk.po patching file po/zh_CN.po patching file po/zh_TW.po Cheers - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8VsIeHpvrrTa6L5oRAvLcAKCDgNaiqWNsnwzMFeMbfjUOaFkruQCeLwE+ mXZW34DvlYhPG7gKbDCfyvs= =n2Lj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: rewriting message status - set alternates + color index by ~P
* Bob Heckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020129 02:42]: does anyone know how to make mutt show messages from yoursef (or another address) show up as read, or not new, or something? it would be handy for high-volume lists. Here's a simplified version of how I set up my .muttrc: score '~t [EMAIL PROTECTED]' 100 # sent directly to me set score_threshold_read=80 # mark potential spam as 'read' no scoring required! :-) tell mutt about your own addresses by setting alternates - and then select these by limiting to the pattern ~P. you can use this pattern for colors, too: color index red default ~P The messages from yourself should now show up in the folder index in red. Sven [see page in sig for more setup stuff] -- Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/setup.html
Re: rewriting message stautus
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:35:26AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: Sounds great, maybe you could send part of your muttrc responsible for such colors? Heh, here. There are some comments at the top about the verbosity of the way it's done. Thanks a lot, BTW I'm still being amazed by mutt's capabilities... -- _.|._ |_ _. | Adam Byrtek, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_|||_)| |(_| | gg 1802819 |
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Hmmm... Thanks Jeremy, that's getting results, unfortunately it's failing on each hunk? What output? Here ya go .. Well actually those are almost all succeeding. All the 'patching...' with no other comments means those succeeded. The 'offset' lines mean that patch was able to find the lines it was looking for near the ones specified by the patch, but that something had changed since the patch was made. The 'failed' lines means something had changed enough to make the lines patch was looking for not the same as when the patch was made, therefore it gives up. Basically, you have a version of Mutt different from the one this patch was made against. Since it's all failing in just translation stuff, and that stuff probably doesn't matter to you, you can go ahead and just build with what succeeded and not worry about it. If the failures bother you, you can get past this by editing the patch and removing the lines that affect the po/* files. patching file PATCHES patching file init.h patching file muttlib.c patching file pgp.c patching file protos.h patching file send.c patching file doc/muttrc.man Hunk #1 succeeded at 2415 (offset 11 lines). patching file po/ca.po patching file po/cs.po patching file po/da.po patching file po/de.po patching file po/el.po patching file po/eo.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3168 (offset -1 lines). patching file po/es.po patching file po/et.po patching file po/fr.po patching file po/gl.po patching file po/hu.po patching file po/id.po patching file po/it.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 2. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej patching file po/ja.po patching file po/ko.po patching file po/lt.po patching file po/nl.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej patching file po/pl.po patching file po/pt_BR.po patching file po/ru.po patching file po/sk.po patching file po/sv.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej patching file po/tr.po patching file po/uk.po patching file po/zh_CN.po patching file po/zh_TW.po msg23958/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why is mutt 1.5 using reverse video when 1.3.23 didn't?
I'm baffled, did the default for all the colors change? I run my terminals black-on-grey, and mutt used to be the same, now all the text is grey, and the backround is back... I don't have ANY color settings in my etc/Muttrc, or my .muttrc, I'm a little baffled. Does anybody have suggestions on how to get back to where I used to be? Thanks! Sam -- Sam Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On 020129, at 09:58:16, Jeremy Blosser wrote Basically, you have a version of Mutt different from the one this patch was made against. Since it's all failing in just translation stuff, and that stuff probably doesn't matter to you, you can go ahead and just build with what succeeded and not worry about it. If the failures bother you, you can get past this by editing the patch and removing the lines that affect the po/* files. On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Hunk #1 FAILED at 2. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej These are near the beginning of the files. When I took a closer look at these, they were just comments with the rcs/cvs version string. -- David Ellement
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On 29-Jan-2002 16:39 Nick Wilson wrote: | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej This is a known problem (my fault). I import mutt source into my own CVS repository, but I didn't use -ko so the keywords are being expanded and then it appears in the patch file. The reject files above will only contain the keyword diffs, so it's not really an issue. Strangely, only these three .po files actually contain an RCS keyword comment. In short, you may safely ignore these three failures. Everything else will have been applied correctly and will work correctly. -- -Dale
Re: Mails received as attachment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Dale Woolridge blurted In short, you may safely ignore these three failures. Everything else will have been applied correctly and will work correctly. Yep, and it's a definate improvement on the outlook patch! - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8Vts3HpvrrTa6L5oRAoelAKCae1zkwji/jkvpQvxZEBI19ZJwEACgj+0O KxrNDb7oZ/YAOQy/P4SCfbE= =ViAv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On 29-Jan-2002 09:01 David Ellement wrote: | | On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: | Hunk #1 FAILED at 2. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej | Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej | Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej | | These are near the beginning of the files. When I took a closer look | at these, they were just comments with the rcs/cvs version string. I've fixed the problem and updated the patch. I didn't bother changing the patchlevel. You find the correct(ed) patch here: http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/patches/patch-1.3.26.dw.pgp-traditional.2 It will apply cleanly to 1.3.26, but I don't know about 1.5.0. If the patch applies cleanly to 1.5, please let me know. -- -Dale
Re: rewriting message stautus
On 28/01/02, from the brain of Justin R. Miller tumbled: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thus spake Nicholas A. Martini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): folder-hook lists 'color index brightmagenta default ~x mithrandir.codesorcery.net !~P' Can you explain how this works? I think I can use it to Flag entire threads if they have any Flagged messages in them. But I'm a bit new and I don't understand the syntax. -- Michael Montagne [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boora.com
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On Jan 29, Dale Woolridge [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/patches/patch-1.3.26.dw.pgp-traditional.2 It will apply cleanly to 1.3.26, but I don't know about 1.5.0. If the patch applies cleanly to 1.5, please let me know. Nope. Note that Thomas has been working on a variant of this idea in the current CVS already, so there's not much chance this patch would apply. % patch -p1 ../patch-1.3.26.dw.pgp-traditional.2 patching file PATCHES patching file init.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 1349 (offset 49 lines). patching file muttlib.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 108 (offset 4 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 197 (offset 4 lines). patching file pgp.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 1646. Hunk #2 FAILED at 1698. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file pgp.c.rej patching file protos.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 258 (offset 1 line). patching file send.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 1422 (offset -17 lines). Hunk #2 FAILED at 1541. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file send.c.rej can't find file to patch at input line 147 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -- |--- mutt-1.3.26/doc/muttrc.man Fri Jan 18 12:29:26 2002 |+++ mutt-1.3.26/doc/muttrc.man Sun Jan 20 09:03:14 2002 -- File to patch: Skip this patch? [y] Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored patching file po/ca.po patching file po/cs.po patching file po/da.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3164 (offset -1 lines). patching file po/de.po patching file po/el.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3843 (offset -22 lines). patching file po/eo.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3168 (offset -1 lines). patching file po/es.po patching file po/et.po patching file po/fr.po patching file po/gl.po patching file po/hu.po patching file po/id.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3179 (offset 1 line). patching file po/it.po patching file po/ja.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3145 (offset -1 lines). patching file po/ko.po patching file po/lt.po patching file po/nl.po patching file po/pl.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 2949 (offset -232 lines). patching file po/pt_BR.po patching file po/ru.po patching file po/sk.po patching file po/sv.po patching file po/tr.po patching file po/uk.po Hunk #1 succeeded at 3137 (offset -20 lines). patching file po/zh_CN.po patching file po/zh_TW.po % ls doc/muttrc.man* doc/muttrc.man.head doc/muttrc.man.tail msg23965/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: rewriting message stautus
On Jan 29, Michael Montagne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: folder-hook lists 'color index brightmagenta default ~x mithrandir.codesorcery.net !~P' Can you explain how this works? It matches if the References: header (specified by the ~x pattern) contains the pattern mithrandir.codesorcery.net, and the message is not from me (the !~P pattern... I believe in this case me is Justin Miller). See section 4.2 in TFM. I think I can use it to Flag entire threads if they have any Flagged messages in them. But I'm a bit new and I don't understand the syntax. No, unfortunately there are no patterns that allow you to match messages other than one at a time. There is a patch out there that allows you to match children of a given match, but not quite what you're looking for. msg23966/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mails received as attachment?
On 29-Jan-2002 11:53 Jeremy Blosser wrote: | On Jan 29, Dale Woolridge [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: | http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/patches/patch-1.3.26.dw.pgp-traditional.2 | | It will apply cleanly to 1.3.26, but I don't know about 1.5.0. If the | patch applies cleanly to 1.5, please let me know. | | Nope. Note that Thomas has been working on a variant of this idea in the | current CVS already, so there's not much chance this patch would apply. Thanks. I've checked it out and see where it fails. I saw Thomas's suggested patch on mutt-dev, although I don't think it's adequate. The real problems with my 1.3.26 patch and 1.5 seem to be a result of the S/MIME integration and related code cleaning. The p_c_t stuff hasn't actually been touched (in essence). I'll work on a 1.5 patch. -- -Dale
Re: Why is mutt 1.5 using reverse video when 1.3.23 didn't?
Does anybody have suggestions on how to get back to where I used to be? I'm sure this is related to some changes to menu.c that went in last night. Roll back to yesterday's version and you should be okay. I'll see if i can fix the problem. -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: rewriting message stautus
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote parv thusly... in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Justin R. Miller thusly... ... folder-hook . push 'T~N~P\n;N\n\ct.\n' Note that this is untested, but what I think I'm trying to do is, upon entering a folder, tag all new messages that were written by me, then toggle their new status, then untag all messages. ... # next three lines should be one; # wrapped for email macro index Escz \ 'tag-pattern ~Pentertag-prefixclear-flagNuntag-pattern ~Penter' \ mark messages read sent by me # # after defining key binding, make it execute for every folder folder-hook . 'push \ez' ... there is a problem w/ jrm's version, and will be w/ my version if tag-pattern is changed from ~P to ~N~P. problem is when no ~N~P messages are found, tag-prefix fails. then regardless of tag-prefix failure, N flag is toggled, or cleared, of the first new/unread message. - parv --
Re: rewriting message stautus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thus spake parv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): there is a problem w/ jrm's version, and will be w/ my version if tag-pattern is changed from ~P to ~N~P. problem is when no ~N~P messages are found, tag-prefix fails. then regardless of tag-prefix failure, N flag is toggled, or cleared, of the first new/unread message. Good call. Without conditional checking (which is lacking in Mutt), I don't know of a way around this... - -- [!] Justin R. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP 0xC9C40C31 -=- http://codesorcery.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8VwU894d6K8nEDDERAmdbAJ9ZGGqGX2lc6N9pDqx4R4e6T/AbGgCfahFn riGy7OmzRwcsz1s0L9Z693M= =sHHd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: rewriting message stautus
* On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:25:32PM -0500, * Justin R. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus spake parv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): problem is when no ~N~P messages are found, tag-prefix fails. then regardless of tag-prefix failure, N flag is toggled, or cleared, of the first new/unread message. Good call. Without conditional checking (which is lacking in Mutt), I don't know of a way around this... http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html patch-1.3.23.2.nr.tag_prefix_cond works for me Nicolas
threading changes in 1.3.27?
Sorry if I missed this in the documentation, but what has changed with threading from 1.3.24 to 1.3.27? I am finding now that consecutive posts from the same thread look like seperate messages in the index, each with '+-' in the index and identical subjects. Thanks. -Ken
Re: threading changes in 1.3.27?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:35:14PM -0800, Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if I missed this in the documentation, but what has changed with threading from 1.3.24 to 1.3.27? I am finding now that consecutive posts from the same thread look like seperate messages in the index, each with '+-' in the index and identical subjects. That description isn't enough for me to have any idea what you're describing. Could you make a small thread and draw (do set ascii_chars if you want to be able to just copy and paste the index display into your email) what it looks like in 1.3.24 and 1.3.27? The major change between the threading in the two versions, though, is that by default mutt hides missing messages, so you don't see all the question marks. You can do set nohide_missing to get them back. I'm going to add $hide_top_missing for those who have said they want to see the question marks between messages but not the leading ones at the top of the thread -- I have a couple more minor bugs to iron out of the new, cleaned up, vastly more comprehensible mutt_draw_tree(), then I'll send a patch. -Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
Re: threading changes in 1.3.27?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: That description isn't enough for me to have any idea what you're describing. Could you make a small thread and draw (do set ascii_chars if you want to be able to just copy and paste the index display into your email) what it looks like in 1.3.24 and 1.3.27? The major change between the threading in the two versions, though, is that by default mutt hides missing messages, so you don't see all the question marks. Huh. This is odd. Not sure the variable here, but sometimes it acts as it should, and sometimes not. The same thread, even. Something like: - 5 Jan 17 Thomas Roessler ( 59) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network - 6 Jan 17 Michael Elkins( 5) `-Re: [OT] MTA for home network But I guess in the other format, it would have been: - 5 Jan 17 Thomas Roessler ( 59) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network - 6 Jan 17 Michael Elkins( 5) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network -Ken
Re: threading changes in 1.3.27?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 01:50:23PM -0800, Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2002, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: That description isn't enough for me to have any idea what you're describing. Could you make a small thread and draw (do set ascii_chars if you want to be able to just copy and paste the index display into your email) what it looks like in 1.3.24 and 1.3.27? The major change between the threading in the two versions, though, is that by default mutt hides missing messages, so you don't see all the question marks. Huh. This is odd. Not sure the variable here, but sometimes it acts as it should, and sometimes not. The same thread, even. Something like: - 5 Jan 17 Thomas Roessler ( 59) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network - 6 Jan 17 Michael Elkins( 5) `-Re: [OT] MTA for home network I assume that what the above is what it looks like with 1.3.27? You don't make it clear. But I guess in the other format, it would have been: - 5 Jan 17 Thomas Roessler ( 59) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network - 6 Jan 17 Michael Elkins( 5) --Re: [OT] MTA for home network No version should ever have shown it like this. If you're describing 1.3.24, I imagine that it actually looked like: ?- `- But I don't know. If what you mean is that the second picture is what it looks like in 1.3.27, could you please send me a small test mailbox demonstrating this? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel E. Eisenbud [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. --Henry David Thoreau, Walking
my address instead of 'To foo@bar.com' in index?
Hi all. I've been googling around and reading TFM wor quite a while now, but to no avail: I'm tired of seeing ' To mutt-users' in the index; I would like to see my address instead. I suppose the solution is to change... index_format? (WAG) Please help me with this one. TIA -- Martin Karlsson martin.karlsson at visit.se
Re: my address instead of 'To foo@bar.com' in index?
Martin Karlsson wrote: I'm tired of seeing ' To mutt-users' in the index; I would like to see my address instead. I suppose the solution is to change... index_format? (WAG) Yes, replace the %L with %F or %n to suit your tastes.
Re: Why is mutt 1.5 using reverse video when 1.3.23 didn't?
On 2002-01-29 13:43:42 -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote: I'm sure this is related to some changes to menu.c that went in last night. Roll back to yesterday's version and you should be okay. I'll see if i can fix the problem. Mh... I trusted you on that patch, and didn't observe any adverse effects myself. ;-) Is there any particular reason why you change menu.c the way you do? -- Thomas Roessler[EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: my address instead of 'To foo@bar.com' in index?
On Tue Jan 29, 2002 at 02:05:45PM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote: Yes, replace the %L with %F or %n to suit your tastes. Just what I wanted. Thanks. -- Martin Karlsson martin.karlsson at visit.se
Re: Why is mutt 1.5 using reverse video when 1.3.23 didn't?
Mh... I trusted you on that patch, and didn't observe any adverse effects myself. ;-) Actually, after further review, this appears to be a bug dating all the way back at least as far as mutt 1.2.5. Try opening an xterm with the command xterm -bg grey -fg black and then run mutt -n -F /dev/null. With the current CVS or any version available at ftp.mutt.org. Instead of keeping the black on gray color scheme, it switches to gray on black. Sam and i aren't sure why his old mutt installation didn't have this problem, but we found out that it wasn't actually 1.3.23i after all. We're not yet sure what it is. -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Why is mutt 1.5 using reverse video when 1.3.23 didn't?
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Mike Schiraldi wrote: Mh... I trusted you on that patch, and didn't observe any adverse effects myself. ;-) Actually, after further review, this appears to be a bug dating all the way back at least as far as mutt 1.2.5. Try opening an xterm with the command xterm -bg grey -fg black and then run mutt -n -F /dev/null. With the current CVS or any version available at ftp.mutt.org. Instead of keeping the black on gray color scheme, it switches to gray on black. that sounds like default-colors aren't setup -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: threading changes in 1.3.27?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: But I don't know. If what you mean is that the second picture is what it looks like in 1.3.27, could you please send me a small test mailbox demonstrating this? I will when I see it again. Very odd behavior. -Ken
Re: rewriting message stautus
Hi, On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 Jeremy Blosser spewed into the ether: On Jan 28, Nicholas A. Martini [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: does anyone know how to make mutt show messages from yoursef (or another address) show up as read, or not new, or something? it would be handy for high-volume lists. depends... if you mean to do it at any given time, use: T (tag-pattern) some pattern (see the manual...mails from yourself would be ~P) enter ; (tag-prefix) W (clear-flag) N And you could 'push' this entire macro everytime you enter said folder. pv. -- Prahlad Vaidyanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm having a BIG BANG THEORY!!
Re: rewriting message stautus
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Nicolas Rachinsky thusly... * On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:25:32PM -0500, * Justin R. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus spake parv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): problem is when no ~N~P messages are found, tag-prefix fails. then regardless of tag-prefix failure, N flag is toggled, or cleared, of the first new/unread message. Good call. Without conditional checking (which is lacking in Mutt), I don't know of a way around this... http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html patch-1.3.23.2.nr.tag_prefix_cond i was avoiding the patch. but now that even w/ ~P pattern, i had above mentioned problem; so i will try this patch w/ 1.3.27i... on a side note, is this patch, or something similar, will make/has made into the mutt(-devel) source tree? - parv --
Re: [OT] Re: your mail
...while adding other problems: Apologies for not getting back to the list with requested specs. My hard drive died and I've spent the last day or so getting things back to normal (whatever that is..) I haven't solved the X problem yet but I'm close. Thomas I followed your advice about inserting the XFree86 termcap and it worked.. Things were working fine in X.. thanks
Re: rewriting message stautus
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote parv thusly... in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Nicolas Rachinsky thusly... * Justin R. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Without conditional checking (which is lacking in Mutt), I don't know of a way around this... http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html patch-1.3.23.2.nr.tag_prefix_cond ... i was avoiding the patch. but now that even w/ ~P pattern, i had above mentioned problem; so i will try this patch w/ 1.3.27i... well, w/ the patch, this... macro index EscZ \ 'tag-pattern~N~Pentertag-prefix-condclear-flagNuntag-pattern~Penter' # folder-hook . 'push \eZ' ...works w/o problems now. thanks nicolas. --
Re: [OT] html email
Nick Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Anyone got the equivelant Procmail recipe for dumping mail if
it's text/html ot not addressed to you? I use this to get the
latter:
:0:
* !(^[EMAIL PROTECTED])
~/Mail/Other/suspect
Which works fine, adding the ability to weed out html would
make it much better.
Actually, I think I'd use one recipe to catch the html messages
first, then dump the messages not explicitly addressed to me
last. Perhaps something like this:
# BEGIN recipe
MAILDIR=${HOME}/Mail
:0 i:
* ^content-type: text\/html
| formail -i X-Spam-reject-reason: HTML-only \
${MAILDIR}/IN-spam
# The following needs to be the last recipe. It dumps anything
# remaining that specifically mentions my addresses into the mail
# spool, and then anything else into the $MAILDIR/IN-spam
# mailbox.
ME='(some happy regexp describing my email addresses)'
:0:
* $ ^TO_$ME
$ORGMAIL
DEFAULT=${MAILDIR}/IN-spam
:0 f:
| formail -i X-Spam-reject-reason: not explicitly addressed to me
# END recipe (and END of ~/.procmailrc file)
-- Mr. Wade
--
Once we've got the bugs ironed out, we'll be running on flat
bugs.
