Re: Using send-hooks with replies
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:29:01PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser muttered: - Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: - Jimmy Mäkelä [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Is it possible to look at the original To: of the message which I wan't - to reply to, and execute commands based on the contents of that. - - This would be nice since it is pretty common to have more than one - email-address, and it is IMHO better to have the address which they wrote - to as From in the reply. - - This must surely be the second most frequently asked question (after - the one about hooks having a permanent effect unless you also have a - default hook to reset the state). - - I don't know, "how do I make Mutt filter mail" is pretty popular too ;) - - See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in - mutt-1.0, I think. - - Others have noted this has been around forever, I will add that you should - also see the $alternates variable, as reverse_name is useless without it. OK, having gotten this far, how do you set it up? I experimented and came up with the following: # Set the various names by which I expect to get email. A regex. set alternates="([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])" send-hook '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED]' "set signature=~/.sig.wyolp.web; \ my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; \ my_hdr Reply-To: Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED]" Mutt version is 1.0.1. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:41:53AM -0600, Charles Curley muttered: - On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:29:01PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser muttered: - - Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: - - Jimmy Mäkelä [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - - Is it possible to look at the original To: of the message which I wan't - - to reply to, and execute commands based on the contents of that. - - - - This would be nice since it is pretty common to have more than one - - email-address, and it is IMHO better to have the address which they wrote - - to as From in the reply. - - - - This must surely be the second most frequently asked question (after - - the one about hooks having a permanent effect unless you also have a - - default hook to reset the state). - - - - I don't know, "how do I make Mutt filter mail" is pretty popular too ;) - - - - See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in - - mutt-1.0, I think. - - - - Others have noted this has been around forever, I will add that you should - - also see the $alternates variable, as reverse_name is useless without it. - - OK, having gotten this far, how do you set it up? I experimented and came - up with the following: - - - # Set the various names by which I expect to get email. A regex. - set alternates="([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])" - - - send-hook '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED]' "set signature=~/.sig.wyolp.web; \ - my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; \ - my_hdr Reply-To: Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED]" - - - - Mutt version is 1.0.1. Also, it helps if you set generic hooks to set the variable back to their defaults for the next message. Otherwise when you send a reply to an email sent to alternate address, the changes become permanent until you send a reply to an email to another alternate address. # globals, apply to all emails. send-hook . unmy_hdr Reply-To: send-hook . 'my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' send-hook . 'set attribution="On %d, %n wrote:"' send-hook . set signature=~/.signatures/.signature Is anyone maintaining a Mutt HOW-TO? -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 03 Apr 2000: - Others have noted this has been around forever, I will add that you should - also see the $alternates variable, as reverse_name is useless without it. OK, having gotten this far, how do you set it up? I experimented and came up with the following: # Set the various names by which I expect to get email. A regex. set alternates="([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])" I'm not sure if you're asking for comments or not. That looks fine to me though. send-hook '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED]' "set signature=~/.sig.wyolp.web; \ my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; \ my_hdr Reply-To: Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED]" You may want to use my_hdr From: Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED] ie. include your name in the From header as well. Also, there's no need to specify a Reply-To at all if the address is the same as From, that's the default. Reply-To should only be specified if it's different from the From header. Charles Curley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 03 Apr 2000: Also, it helps if you set generic hooks to set the variable back to their defaults for the next message. Indeed. :-) Is anyone maintaining a Mutt HOW-TO? Not that I know of, unless you count the FAQ as such. Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy scifi, the Corrs / When I try to get a life... I always get either 404 or server timeout. :-(
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
Jimmy Mäkelä [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is it possible to look at the original To: of the message which I wan't to reply to, and execute commands based on the contents of that. This would be nice since it is pretty common to have more than one email-address, and it is IMHO better to have the address which they wrote to as From in the reply. This must surely be the second most frequently asked question (after the one about hooks having a permanent effect unless you also have a default hook to reset the state). See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in mutt-1.0, I think. Edmund
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 26 Jan 2000: This must surely be the second most frequently asked question (after the one about hooks having a permanent effect unless you also have a default hook to reset the state). Indeed. :-) See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in mutt-1.0, I think. It is in Mutt 1.0 (and later). At least my version 1.0 has it. :-) Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy scifi, the Corrs / unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
On 2000-01-26 13:25:33 +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in mutt-1.0, I think. Reverse_name is a pretty old feature, and certainly present in stable. However, it's more useful together with the new versions' "from" variable. -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Re: Using send-hooks with replies
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Jimmy Mäkelä [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is it possible to look at the original To: of the message which I wan't to reply to, and execute commands based on the contents of that. This would be nice since it is pretty common to have more than one email-address, and it is IMHO better to have the address which they wrote to as From in the reply. This must surely be the second most frequently asked question (after the one about hooks having a permanent effect unless you also have a default hook to reset the state). I don't know, "how do I make Mutt filter mail" is pretty popular too ;) See reverse_name in the latest mutt. Unfortunately this isn't in mutt-1.0, I think. Others have noted this has been around forever, I will add that you should also see the $alternates variable, as reverse_name is useless without it. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "If Microsoft can change and compete on quality, I've won." -- L. Torvalds PGP signature
