Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
[ Chris Green Wrote On Thu 29.Nov'12 at 17:38:58 GMT ] On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:24:49PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:38]: ... It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. Ah, consider a procmail rule to strip the Cc: header from msgs From.*ixion\@ixion.org.uk You *do* user procmail? :^) Also, this would only ensure Chris doesn't receive a duplicate copy of the message; the mailing list to which he is sending would still receive two copies. I guess that's what he's more concerned about.
Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
I have been trying to work out for a while why I sometimes send two copies of some messages to mailing lists. I finally worked out why, the L[ist reply] command will send to any address which is like:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk *as well as* any message that matches the name found in the subscribe and/or lists commands in muttrc. Is there any way to disable the use of the List-Post: entry, or any way to prevent mutt from sending to two addresses? On this list there's always a List-Post: header and, sometimes there is also a To: ix...@ixion.org.uk which also works for the same list. -- Chris Green
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
* Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:38]: ... It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. Ah, consider a procmail rule to strip the Cc: header from msgs From.*ixion\@ixion.org.uk You *do* user procmail? :^) -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
* Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:38]: ... It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. After a bit more thought, I wonder why this post which contains mutt-users@... in the header 14 times does not cause you dups ??? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:24:49PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:38]: ... It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. Ah, consider a procmail rule to strip the Cc: header from msgs From.*ixion\@ixion.org.uk You *do* user procmail? :^) No, I use my own filter program, written in Python. I could add such a rule but I don't really like 'special for one list' rules. -- Chris Green
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28:00PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:38]: ... It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. After a bit more thought, I wonder why this post which contains mutt-users@... in the header 14 times does not cause you dups ??? It's because that mutt-users@mutt.org is the *same* address as is found in the List-Post: header. It's just that on the ixion list there are different addresses in Cc: and List-Post:. -- Chris Green
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
Hi Chris! On Do, 29 Nov 2012, Chris Green wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:23:56AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:08]: I have been trying to work out for a while why I sometimes send two copies of some messages to mailing lists. I finally worked out why, the L[ist reply] command will send to any address which is like:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk *as well as* any message that matches the name found in the subscribe and/or lists commands in muttrc. Is there any way to disable the use of the List-Post: entry, or any way to prevent mutt from sending to two addresses? On this list there's always a List-Post: header and, sometimes there is also a To: ix...@ixion.org.uk which also works for the same list. I have not found this a problem. I haven't noticed *myself* sending dups to the/any list using the list reply function L. You undoubtedly have something in ~/.muttrc. W/o seeing your .muttrc, I can only suggest saving your present .muttrc to another name and making a new minimal .muttrc to use for testing. Set a fictitious mailing list in .muttrc with an address you control and use it for testing. Add sections of your original .muttrc between tests until you notice dups occuring. If you have recorded or can identify the list[s] where the dups occur, look in your .muttrc for similarities to those list posting addrs. Playing with them could minimize the effort necessary. It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. Can't you do something like lists ixion@([^.]*\.)?ixion.org.uk ? This should make mutt treat both addresses as the same list and make it only list-reply to one of it (My guess would be the List-Post adress). regards, Christian -- And if sometime, somewhere, someone asketh thee, Who kilt thee?, tell them it 'twas the Doones of Bagworthy!
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:37:23PM +, Chris Green wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:23:56AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [11-29-12 11:08]: I have been trying to work out for a while why I sometimes send two copies of some messages to mailing lists. I finally worked out why, the L[ist reply] command will send to any address which is like:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk *as well as* any message that matches the name found in the subscribe and/or lists commands in muttrc. Is there any way to disable the use of the List-Post: entry, or any way to prevent mutt from sending to two addresses? List-Post is always used when the list-reply function is invoked. There is not configuration option to disable that. It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. Mutt doesn't have any way for the user to let it know about mailing list aliases, so when you invoke list-reply it pulls out all addresses which match, along with List-Post. I *think* I may be able to fix the problem by removing ix...@ixion.org.uk from subscribe/lists but it's not ideal because I also need to know that messages sent to ix...@ixion.org.uk are messages to the list. What I was really complaining about was that mutt uses the List-Post: header and that this *isn't* as documented. http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3599
Re: Documentation on L[ist reply] doesn't tell the whole truth
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:46:22PM +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote: It's not my .muttrc, it's just one list that I subscribe to which has two addresses. Only one address ever appears in List-Post: but the alternative address sometimes appears in To: or Cc: headers, thus there can be messages with the following:- List-Post: mailto:ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk Cc: ix...@ixion.org.uk Since I have ix...@ixion.org.uk in 'subscribes' and 'lists' mutt will reply to *both* ix...@ixiemaster.ixion.org.uk and ix...@ixion.org.uk when I hit L[ist reply]. Can't you do something like lists ixion@([^.]*\.)?ixion.org.uk ? This should make mutt treat both addresses as the same list and make it only list-reply to one of it (My guess would be the List-Post adress). That's an idea, it fits into my system OK as well because the REs for matching are in a 'filter' file so I can easily put one like you suggest there and see if it works. Thanks! -- Chris Green
Documentation (was: pgp_autosign=ask-no)
* Kyle Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-02 16:25 -0500]: On Tuesday, October 2 at 02:33 PM, quoth Joseph: You mean crypt_autosign (pgp_autosign is a deprecated synonym for crypt_autosign)? Yup; the documentation says it's just a boolean, not a quad-option. I tripped on one of these variables a while back. (It was crypt_verify_sig in my case but the point is the same.) I'd actually dug through the manual trying to figure out where I'd gone wrong. I was setting crypt_verify_sig=no, but I had an old entry for pgp_verify_sig which was set to yes. I'd have had a better chance of catching my mistake myself if the mutt manual (from 1.5.16) mentioned pgp_verify_sig. The option may be deprecated, but if it's still effective in muttrc, I think it should be mentioned. Breen -- Breen Mullins Menlo Park, California
source /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl| documentation bug.
I have this perl program to write folder hooks so I can return to
the same place in the mailboxes screen from the index screen,
instead of always to the first line:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
my mailboxes = glob(Mail/*);
foreach my $mailbox ( mailboxes )
{
$mailbox =~ s/^ Mail\/ (.*)$/=$1/x;
print qq{folder-hook $mailbox 'macro index h
change-folder?tabsearch$mailboxenter'\n};
}
I source it in /etc/Muttrc with this line:
source /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl|/
to put output into Muttrc, following the direction in the manual,
If the filename ends with a vertical bar (|), then filename is
considered to be an executable program from which to read input (eg.
source ~bin/myscript|/).
but I was getting this error:
Error in /etc/Muttrc, line 709: /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl|/:
No such file or directory
source: errors in /etc/Muttrc
Press any key to continue...
I then took off the final slash, and it started working. So, I
think this is a documentation bug.
However, this is on cygwin, so perhaps it is an idiosyncracy
of cygwin, rather than a documentation bug.
Re: source /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl| documentation bug.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:17:26PM +0800, Greg Matheson wrote: I source it in /etc/Muttrc with this line: source /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl|/ to put output into Muttrc, following the direction in the manual, If the filename ends with a vertical bar (|), then filename is considered to be an executable program from which to read input (eg. source ~bin/myscript|/). but I was getting this error: Error in /etc/Muttrc, line 709: /etc/mutt/indexhooks.pl|/: No such file or directory source: errors in /etc/Muttrc Press any key to continue... I then took off the final slash, and it started working. So, I think this is a documentation bug. However, this is on cygwin, so perhaps it is an idiosyncracy of cygwin, rather than a documentation bug. I'm using GNU/Linux and have the same problem. This is a true documentation bug. -- Bernard Massot msg31902/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BlackBox documentation?
Ben, I had the same problem ... prepending classic to the links seems to get you what you want (somewhere in the archives, since that's where i learned about it). this works for openers: http://bb.classic.themes.org/php/docs.phtml?docid=25secid=6.2do=Up hth (and aloha), dave On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 01:20:05PM -0800, Ben Harrison wrote: Hey everyone, It appears that with the reorg on themes.org, the documentation links on blackbox.alug.org have all been broken. Is there a copy of this anywhere else? I'm relatively new to bb and while i've been able to set it up, i'd like to refer some less technical friends. Thanks, Ben
Re: BlackBox documentation?
Dave -- ...and then Dave Price said... % ... % http://bb.classic.themes.org/php/docs.phtml?docid=25secid=6.2do=Up Did you really mean to send this to us? :-) % % hth (and aloha), % dave :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
documentation?
Hi all Is there any documentation for mutt 1.3.x floating around? All the docs I've found seem to be for 1.2.5... Matt -- Matt Spong || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || AIM: Spong1027 || http://www.forkbomb.net Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -Benjamin Franklin PGP signature
Re: documentation?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 02:14:25PM -0400, Matt Spong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any documentation for mutt 1.3.x floating around? All the docs I've found seem to be for 1.2.5... The mutt 1.3.x distribution contains a manual for mutt 1.3.x. -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: documentation?
The mutt 1.3.x distribution contains a manual for mutt 1.3.x. *sigh*, so it does. I looked and saw it said version 1.2.5 in manual.txt, but I guess I looked in the wrong place. Sorry. /me removes foot from mouth Matt -- Matt Spong || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || AIM: Spong1027 || http://www.forkbomb.net Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -Benjamin Franklin PGP signature
Re: Documentation about signature seperator
* Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001/06/30 21:41]: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK there is no such documentation. It's merely a tradition that was carried over from USENET. Very few mail clients seem to do this anymore. AFAIK, the sig separator is documented in the latest Usenet drafts. See http://www.landfield.com/usefor/. More precisely in section 4.3.2. Body Conventions of the latest Usefor draft: http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-04.txt -- Rafael Laboissiere
Re: Documentation about signature seperator
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: : : * Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001/06/30 21:41]: : : In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], : Michael Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : AFAIK there is no such documentation. It's merely a tradition that was : carried over from USENET. Very few mail clients seem to do this anymore. : : AFAIK, the sig separator is documented in the latest Usenet drafts. : See http://www.landfield.com/usefor/. : : More precisely in section 4.3.2. Body Conventions of the latest : Usefor draft: : :http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-04.txt Pretty strong language too! If a poster or posting agent does append such a signature to an article, it MUST be preceded with a delimiter line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by one SP (ASCII 32). -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
View Threads, missing documentation or missing brain?
I'm using a folder-hook to set sort=threads, if there is mention of the following question in the docs I'm missing it! When it comes up all threads are expanded - can I have them start up in a collapsed way? Or even better where all are collapsed except those with new mail within the thread? Thanks, Bruce.
Re: Documentation bug regarding `date_format'?
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:42:15 +0100, Dave Pearson wrote: According to section 6.3.27 of the mutt manual (I'm running 1.2.5i here) the variable `date_format' "controls the format of the date printed by the ``%d'' sequence in ``index_format''". Further, section 6.3.73 says that the %d and %D sequences display the date and time of a message "in the format specified by ``date_format''". However, it would appear that `date_format' doesn't (quite rightly?) work for all uses of the `index_format' sequences. Would it? Not to me. For example, `date_format' does affect the output of `attribution' (the documentation of which points the reader to the documentation for `index_format'). Yes, "date_format" does affect the output of "attribution" if the "attribution" string contains %d or %D sequences. Is this a documentation bug? I don't see any bug here. -- Byrial http://home.worldonline.dk/~byrial/
Documentation bug regarding `date_format'?
According to section 6.3.27 of the mutt manual (I'm running 1.2.5i here) the variable `date_format' "controls the format of the date printed by the ``%d'' sequence in ``index_format''". Further, section 6.3.73 says that the %d and %D sequences display the date and time of a message "in the format specified by ``date_format''". However, it would appear that `date_format' doesn't (quite rightly?) work for all uses of the `index_format' sequences. For example, `date_format' does affect the output of `attribution' (the documentation of which points the reader to the documentation for `index_format'). Is this a documentation bug? -- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc - HTML utility Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Translations of mutt documentation.
I'm planning to add a doc/ subdirectory to the FTP area, which should carry translations of the mutt documentation which aren't included with the source code. If you are maintaining such a translation, please contact me. -- Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
