Re: Order of send-hook and folder-hook options.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:43:44PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: What about something like this: folder-hook . my_hdr From: address_a folder-hook =lists my_hdr From: address_b send-hook '!~f address_b' 'my_hdr From: address_a' send-hook '~C @example.com' 'my_hdr From: address_c' I couldn't get this one to work, but send-hook '~f address_a !~C @example.com' etc seems to work. folder-hook . 'set my_stophook=no; my_hdr From: address_a' folder-hook =lists 'set my_stophook=yes; my_hdr From: address_b' send-hook . \ '`[ $my_stophook == yes ] echo set my_stophook || echo my_hdr From: address_a`' send-hook '~C @example.com' 'my_hdr From: address_c' This one didn't appear to work either; with both, the send-hook still overrode the folder-hook. Of course, you may want to do something a little simpler, and a little more effective than using a folder-hook to set your return address. Personally, I'd do something like this: send-hook .my_hdr From: address_a send-hook ~l my_hdr From: address_b send-hook @example.com my_hdr From: address_c I think I saw this one before; it works, but it means I need to keep track of the lists I'm subscribed to (rather than just filtering everything sent to my list address into a separate folder). On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:50:57PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote: What I've done is nest them, so that a set of folder-hooks define the set of send-hooks and/or message-hooks to be used within that folder. It looks a little complicated at first, but it works quite well. This occurred to me, but I couldn't get the quoting right. Thanks, both of you. -- Benjamin A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ Now, now, dear man, this is not the time to be making enemies. - Voltaire, on his deathbed when a priest asked him to renounce Satan pgpbmaD2dPIsM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Folding text before quoting?
Hey everyone, I reply to lots of emails sent by MS Outlook, which puts all text on a single long line. When I put reply, mutt writes out the temp file and opens it with vim. This quotes the text as a single line. I wonder if there's an easy way to get mutt to throw the emails through a pipeline before writing them out? That seems like it would be the quickest way. Otherwise, I'll cook up a shell script to wrap vim. Thanks! Ross signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Folding text before quoting?
Hello, On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:58:23AM -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote: I reply to lots of emails sent by MS Outlook, which puts all text on a single long line. When I put reply, mutt writes out the temp file and opens it with vim. This quotes the text as a single line. I wonder if there's an easy way to get mutt to throw the emails through a pipeline before writing them out? That seems like it would be the quickest way. Otherwise, I'll cook up a shell script to wrap vim. I have this Problem only for a few mails. Also I do not like a general folding of the messages... For the few lines I go to the lines and press gqap in vim. Greetings from Hamburg Sebastian Waschik
Re: Folding text before quoting?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 11:03:59AM -0400, Sebastian Waschik wrote: I have this Problem only for a few mails. Also I do not like a general folding of the messages... For the few lines I go to the lines and press gqap in vim. That's a pretty good solution and doest require me to write any scripts, so I like it! Thanks, Ross signature.asc Description: Digital signature
How to send a return receipt
Hi, we have customers that send as jobs per email. Some of them set the I want to receive a return receipt-option which means that I (as the receipient) am asked if I want to send a return receipt. Technically the header set is Return-Receipt-To: with the email adress of the sender. It has become the best practice between those customers and us, that we confirm the sending of a return receipt to confirm that we have seen and will process the job (because we do not need to interact with the customer afterwards). In mutt we are not asked if we want to send such a return receipt. Is this configurable? I also read somewhere that mutt doesn't support that but I can't believe that. Is that true? Thanks in advance, best Regards Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to send a return receipt
=- schoenfeld / in-medias-res wrote on Thu 11.Oct'07 at 17:43:27 +0200 -= Some of them set the I want to receive a return receipt-option which means that I (as the receipient) am asked if I want to send a return receipt. Simply send a regular reply: Seen and will do it. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
Re: Order of send-hook and folder-hook options.
On 2007-10-11, Benjamin A'Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:50:57PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote: What I've done is nest them, so that a set of folder-hooks define the set of send-hooks and/or message-hooks to be used within that folder. It looks a little complicated at first, but it works quite well. This occurred to me, but I couldn't get the quoting right. That's one of the advantages to having the folder-hooks source files of other hooks: the quoting is much simpler. It's important to remember that the command argument to each hook is a single command, so the whole command argument usually needs to be quoted as a single string. I usually use the following quoting conventions: 'outermost level next level in \ next level in Once you get the quoting right for one hook, though, you can construct most of your other hooks by copy-paste-edit. Thanks, both of you. You're welcome. Regards, Gary
Re: How to send a return receipt
asked if we want to send such a return receipt. Is this configurable? I also read somewhere that mutt doesn't support that but I can't believe that. Is that true? This is correct. Mutt doesn't internally support MDNs. A patch has been posted by Werner Koch, but it might not be current. Check the mutt-dev archives. You can set up procmail or a similar mail filter to return a DSN if your mail server doesn't support it, but this lets the sender know only that the message was received, not that it was read. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago Polka music needs to prevail. John Ziobrowski, Polka America Corporation
Re: How to send a return receipt
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 11:28:46AM -0500, David Champion wrote: This is correct. Mutt doesn't internally support MDNs. A patch has Uhh, thats funny... in a not funny at all way. :-( been posted by Werner Koch, but it might not be current. Check the mutt-dev archives. Hm. I will look for that patch. Any ideas why this has not been integrated into the main development tree of mutt? You can set up procmail or a similar mail filter to return a DSN if your mail server doesn't support it, but this lets the sender know only that the message was received, not that it was read. Well, actually it is more important for me to indicate that the message has been read, so this does not help me much. Thanks anyway. Regards, Patrick
Re: How to send a return receipt
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:59:45PM +0200, Rado S wrote: Simply send a regular reply: Seen and will do it. Thanks for the advice, but this ain't a solution. Regards, Patrick
Re: How to send a return receipt
Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 11:28:46AM -0500, David Champion wrote: This is correct. Mutt doesn't internally support MDNs. A patch has Uhh, thats funny... in a not funny at all way. :-( been posted by Werner Koch, but it might not be current. Check the mutt-dev archives. Hm. I will look for that patch. Any ideas why this has not been integrated into the main development tree of mutt? The concept of mail receipts is poorly designed; there is no way to implement a reliable receipt notification system with SMTP mail. *Many* of the better mail packages therefore do not implement support for it -- why have a feature if you *know* it can never work properly? It's also seen as an invasion of privacy. Mail receipts are essentially one of those features that commercial MUA vendors include as a marketing checkbox feature, but which serve little or no useful purpose in the real world. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ ---
pattern aliases
I was unable to find an answer to this question on the wiki, in the manual or in the mailing list archives. Is it possible to create aliases for commonly used patterns? For instance, when I begin working on project foo, I often start by limiting my messages to something like (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH It gets tedious to type that each time. I'd like to put something like this in my .muttrc pattern_alias foo (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH and then just limit my messages to the pattern foo. Is something similar possible? Thank you. -- Michael
Re: pattern aliases
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:19:15PM -0600, Michael Hendricks wrote: on project foo, I often start by limiting my messages to something like (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH It gets tedious to type that each time. I'd like to put something like this in my .muttrc pattern_alias foo (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH and then just limit my messages to the pattern foo. Is something similar possible? I think not, but why not use macros instead? -- Javier Rojas GPG Key ID: 0xA1C57061 pgp1Vw0tkvI2D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pattern aliases
Thus spake Michael Hendricks [10/11/07 @ 21.19.15 -0600]: I was unable to find an answer to this question on the wiki, in the manual or in the mailing list archives. Is it possible to create aliases for commonly used patterns? For instance, when I begin working on project foo, I often start by limiting my messages to something like (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH It gets tedious to type that each time. I'd like to put something like this in my .muttrc pattern_alias foo (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH and then just limit my messages to the pattern foo. Is something similar possible? I just tried this: macro editor *foo some stuff here and it expanded after I hit 'l' for limit. Maybe that's not so elegant, but it seems to work just fine. -G
Re: pattern aliases
On 11Oct2007 23:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Thus spake Michael Hendricks [10/11/07 @ 21.19.15 -0600]: | Is it possible to create | aliases for commonly used patterns? [...] | my .muttrc | | pattern_alias foo (~f example.org | ~f sample.com) ~s foo !~s PATCH | | and then just limit my messages to the pattern foo. Is something | similar possible? | | I just tried this: | | macro editor *foo some stuff here | | and it expanded after I hit 'l' for limit. Maybe that's not so elegant, | but it seems to work just fine. Yeah. For a real world example, I have this one: macro index y limit~h ^^x-label:.* limit by X-Label header to easily commence a limit by X-Label: header limit. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training. - Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the unsolvable problem by inventing Nautilus.
