Don't reply to me does not work?
Hi, I have set the following: # don't reply to myself set metoo=no but it seems when I use 'g' to reply to an email, I still get another copy. Since I am already using Fcc, so I ended up with two copies of my reply. What is the wrong here? Thanks. Jun
Re: Don't reply to me does not work?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:35:46AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % but it seems when I use 'g' to reply to an email, I still get another copy. % Since I am already using Fcc, so I ended up with two copies of my reply. % % What is the wrong here? mutt has to know who you are before it can know to not reply. Do you have $alternates set up correctly? Right on target - Thanks. :-) Jun
change $record based on mailboxes
I have multiple mailbox folders. I want to save a copy of outgoing message in the current mbox folder. Pretty reasonable enough. The following solution seems to work: folder-hook . set record= folder-hook =local set record==local folder-hook =haviworks set record==haviworks folder-hook =ebase set record==ebase However, I have more than a dozen mailboxes and I sometimes add new ones. Is there a quick and easy way to say I always want to set $record to the current mailbox? I tried folder-hook . set record== and that simply creates '' file under my mail directory. I don't think I am the mailing list any more. Would appreciate if you cc your reply directly to my email address. TIA. Jun
Re: change $record based on mailboxes
Thanks, but I don't see how those two variables help. My goal is to save a outgoing message to the same folder that I am currently reading from (i.e., one of those =local, =ebase, etc) *Not* based on the address I am sending to. Jun On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 02:57:44PM -0500, darren chamberlain wrote: * Jun Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-03 14:55]: I have multiple mailbox folders. I want to save a copy of outgoing message in the current mbox folder. Pretty reasonable enough. The following solution seems to work: [-- snip --] 6.3.51. force_name Type: boolean Default: no This variable is similar to $save_name, except that Mutt will store a copy of your outgoing message by the username of the address you are sending to even if that mailbox does not exist. Also see the $record variable. ... 6.3.189. save_name Type: boolean Default: no This variable controls how copies of outgoing messages are saved. When set, a check is made to see if a mailbox specified by the recipient address exists (this is done by searching for a mailbox in the $folder directory with the username part of the recipient address). If the mailbox exists, the outgoing message will be saved to that mailbox, otherwise the message is saved to the $record mailbox. Also see the $force_name variable. (darren) -- Those who learn from history are doomed to have it repeated to them anyway. -- Larry Wall
Re: change $record based on mailboxes - copy+save_name
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:25:05AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: * Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-04 00:26]: % folder-hook . set record= % folder-hook =local set record==local % folder-hook =haviworks set record==haviworks % folder-hook =ebase set record==ebase .. I want fcc set to the mbox folder where the list email is in to which I am replying. It's a big PITA for dozens of folders, created by procmail. I would have thought for procmail to be in very common use with people who use mutt. It requires a folder-hook for each list - blerrg. mutt is no replacement for procmail. if your problem is with procmail then you should be posting elsewhere. there's fcc-hook and fcc-save-hook and with header editing you can also use your editor's feature to adjust the Fcc. have you tried these? besides, when you have set save_name then mails sent to listname@domain get saved in +listname. and if you need a different name for +listname, well, there's ln -s to create symlinks! Don't you think it is a common sense to save a copy of outgoing message to the *same* folder as you are reading from? If that is so, I think we should make it easier to do this. Another common need of saving a copy is to save all of them in a single Outbox folder, which mutt is already capable of doing. Cheers. Jun
How to *not* include myself in the reply message?
Often times when I hit g for a group reply, I have myself included in the CC address. Since I have already set up mutt such that I will get BCC'ed for my replies, I will then two copies of my own reply. Is there a way to *not* include myself when I hit g group reply? Thanks. Jun
Re: How to *not* include myself in the reply message?
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:59:28PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: Jun Sun wrote: Often times when I hit g for a group reply, I have myself included in the CC address. Since I have already set up mutt such that I will get BCC'ed for my replies, I will then two copies of my own reply. Is there a way to *not* include myself when I hit g group reply? from TFM: metoo Type: boolean Default: no If unset, Mutt will remove your address from the list of recipients when replying to a message. Hmm, first I did not change 'metoo'. Secondly even if I explicitly set 'metoo' to no, I still see my address included in group reply. I think it might has to do with my folder setting. I have set up such that in different folders I have different From: address. Perhaps mutt does not recognize those additional From: addresses as me, and consequently include them in the group reply. Is there anyway to tell mutt what addresses are considered me so that it won't include any of them when I hit g group reply? Or is there way to mutt respect the current From: and regard it as me ? Jun
