Re: A mutt flea, or just me?: Last reply paragraph is not displayed
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:52:19AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Come to think of it, how can such an email actually exist? When email is transmitted via SMTP, it's *required* to be terminated by a newline. If it isn't, there's no way to know that the message has finished. Ah, we can't fault mutt, then. So, if you're getting a message delivered to you that's missing a terminating newline, that suggests to me that some part of your message delivery service is snipping off the newline. Yes, the fact that no-one else on that linux list muttered in their beard about those emails has prompted me to make procmail pass through an additional unfiltered copy of them. The only filter action shown by the log is however: procmail: Executing formail -aReply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] $MAILDIR/luv-main The addition of a header shouldn't muck with the last line of the body. (And doesn't on any of the tens of thousands of other emails that rule has processed on that and other lists.) Once another problem email comes in, the evidence for a local cause should be available. Many thanks for your help getting this far. Erik
Re: :source ~/.muttrc command weirdly moves message around in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, June 20 at 01:19 AM, quoth Russell Hoover: I've never actually once ever had any matching I didn't want on |cv|dm in the line folder-hook '|cv|dm''set index_format=%3C %Z %[%m/%d] %-22.22F \ %?l?%4l%4c? %s' The cv and dm folders don't ever get mail sent directly to them. Well, that's beside the point. The reason you haven't had any false positive matches is that none of your other folders have the strings cv or dm in their title. And if you can be assured that you never will, then it doesn't matter. Of course, a false-positive match will only manifest itself as a slightly incorrect index_format; hardly a serious problem, of course. ~Kyle - -- Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it. -- Heisenberg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iEYEARECAAYFAkhbuD0ACgkQBkIOoMqOI14rYwCfbrit6d8PVi+DNFY4g1UQ5s6w kpUAnjGGaZsU/7KNAsZblUCOcDqjf/WN =mNxB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: index_format setting to show yr
Is there any way to setup mutt (the date_format variable?) such that in the index view, the year is shown only if the year of the message is different from the current year? The default %d shows only the Month date. You need the date_conditional patch to make date formats conditional upon relative date offsets, but even so you can only say in the last 6 months or the like -- not in the current year. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: index_format setting to show yr
On 20 Jun 2008 12:42 -0500, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Champion): You need the date_conditional patch to make date formats conditional upon relative date offsets, but even so you can only say in the last 6 months or the like -- not in the current year. I haven't looked at this particular patch and the functionality it offers, but couldn't one come pretty close with a combination of that and muttrc GNU date shell/backtick expansions? Granted, it would be something of a kludge, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work. (date's +%-j format might come in handy.) -- Michael Kjörling .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. http://michael.kjorling.se * . No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings . * * ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 * * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments * signature.asc Description: Digital signature
A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were
A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was apparently some sort of alternative address for the list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list? If it is not, I'd like to remove the following from my .procmailrc: :0 * ^Delivered-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $HOME/Mail/m/ which of course is a recipe for putting any mail sent to that address into my mutt-users-list folder. -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //
gbnet address still used for mutt-users list?
A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was apparently some sort of alternative address for the list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list? If it is not, I'd like to remove the following from my .procmailrc: :0 * ^Delivered-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $HOME/Mail/m/ which of course is a recipe for putting any mail sent to that address into my mutt-users-list folder. -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //
Re: A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from
Russell Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was apparently some sort of alternative address for the list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list? It is no longer active. Users who send email to that address are asked, via a bounce, to direct email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gbnet
On Sat 06/21/08 at 12:37 AM -0400, Sahil Tandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is no longer active. Users who send email to that address are asked, via a bounce, to direct email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you muchly, sorry for the dupe. -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //
