Hi,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
I am trying to use multiple IMAP accounts. Following the Wiki, I use
these settings:
I have not yet used this multiple IMAP accounts, so I don't know this for
certain, but..
account-hook . 'unset imap_pass'
... my
Hi,
as it does not seem to be integrated into mutt upstream (at least not in
a forseeable timeline) I'm currently trying to
figure who a scripted solution to my problem would look like.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:14:48PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
It appears complex to you, but in fact it _is_
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:47:58AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-24-07 10:42]:
And even though the specified file is a valid executable script mutt says
(when
I open this mail in the pager):
first *guess* w/b that ~/.mutt/return_receipt script
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 04:53:23PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What information do you expect me to presentate? Eventually my whole mutt
configuration just to ask why one specific message-hook (which I presentated)
is not working?
There is only one information that I see that I really
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 04:56:13PM +0200, Christian Brabandt wrote:
Do you mind formating your message with a width 80 chars?
no, thats no problem.
Depending on what your want try either shell-escape or pipe-message
Hm. That and what Dave Evans wrote works, at least partially.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:30:45PM +0200, Christian Brabandt wrote:
If you have used pipe-message I think your stdin has changed to the
messages you piped. And read expects your answer from that filehandle.
So you might try explicitly setting your tty with read yn /dev/tty
Okay, that might be
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:39:17PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
ls -la ~/.mutt/return_receipt
You should work on you ability to _read_ mails others write _properly_.
I told you, that the file _is_ executable. And as you eventually noticed
someone else already pointed the right solution out to
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:14:48PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Yes, but I think you're too paranoid or haven't noticed the required
tools for such a solution: they are _basic_ unix tools like ls, which
I don't know who you process headers with basic unix tools, but I don't care.
Because i face the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 05:15:10PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Before we (you or I) can judge what is harm- or useful to mutt, we
both would have to know 1st what mutt is about. I don't know it
(yet), do you?
I don't think that the term 'harmful' needs an explination in whats
mutt about. Harmful is
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:20:41PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
I know this. But if your boss asks you, if your client can do MDNs and if
yes, you must activate it, it is far easier to say, no, it can not do this.
I don't believe that a boss that *asks* weither your MUA supports something
that
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:39:55PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
Say, like HTML mails, vCards, vacation messages, address books? Nothing of
this sort is supported by mutt but relies on external programs.
HTML mails, hmm. Bad thing. I don't like, nor do I write them myself, but
receiving
them
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Depends on what you want to achieve: do we want mutt to be
acceptable in the business no matter what?
if we were talking about anything thats very harmful to mutt in general I would
say: No. But we are talking about a mini feature,
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:54:16PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
color header ^dispo... color1 color2
that is what I currently do, but you cannot call this a notification.
In fact it is nothing more then a mark. And so its a workaround again.
One action: macro(s).
Well, you are right that this
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
But DSNs are the way to go. The server should send the notification that it
how can you define whats the way to go, if I can show you a usecase were this
is exactly isn't whats needed neither whats wanted?
It has been said a
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Being able to say, Mutt can do that, if you write a script to do it,
and write a macro to invoke the script and... does not constitute
support for a feature in Mutt.
Not sure why not. The particular script or hook in
Hi,
Derek I can only agree with you in everything you wrote.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:52AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Actually I think this is a fine example of why that argument is total
nonsense. Since SMTP support has been added, in what measurable way
has it caused Mutt to suck
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:18:05AM -0400, Jing Xue wrote:
Well, in the corporate* world where people communicate over Lotus Notes or
Outlook, they tend to use mail receipts a lot. And _because_ they all
communicate over the same MUA that supports the feature, it actually does
work and
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Return-receipts being standard replies with a preformatted content
(nothing special about them), mutt _does_ support them, just not
Well, the problem is that what you describe is not all.
Additional the feature (to be comparable) it is a
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:35:02PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Thus, any message that does not have an X-Disposition-Sent header is a
message that you haven't sent a response to, and messages that DO have
such a header won't trigger the macro.
That does not work (at least in my case) because
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:06:44PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Oh, come on, the appropriate docs would be the *mutt* documentation,
of course! Can we possibly ask a more vague or open-ended question?
Haha! If it would be so obvious I wouldn't have asked, hu? Take for granted
that I had a look
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Joseph wrote:
8.12: How to send an auto-reply back when someone posts?
thanks for that hint, but actually a auto-reply is not appropriate. I need
something to actually confirm, because someone might already have sent it out.
In another part of the
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 01:37:13PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
Surely if a mail is sent to (say) ten recipients it's pretty useless
to know that it got to just one of them. If all ten recipients had
Eh.. no?! If you send it to 10 different recipients, with each representing a
different role, then
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
But as I understand it in most 'normal' MUAs if you have one address
for several people then it's split into separate messages at the
sender end of things and from then on is simply a separate message to
each recipient.
But in which way
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:10:45PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
But you're asking for proof that it reached us as the recipient for
multiple recipients apparently, with a *single* acknowledgement.
That's just not possible in any sort of system.
No. You get me wrong, repeatedly. I'm asking for a proof
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 05:04:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Why not?
What is it different from what you're looking for?
a lot of extra effort is the difference. You cannot really compare sending a
return receipt with sending a mail, where a r-got it really isn't enough.
Mutt can do that to,
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:23:13PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
The concept of mail receipts is poorly designed; there is no way to implement
I agree, if you look at whats given by the aspect of a evidence in law terms
but it is practical if it is part of a given process between people. In
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
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
Hi,
i am reading several mailing lists (including mutt-users) and prefer to view
those folders with 'limit ~N'. But it seems not to be possible to enable this
limit for folders by default, by using folder-hooks.
Example:
folder-hook . 'limit all'
folder-hook =Mailinglisten.mutt-users 'limit ~N'
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 12:19:00PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
'limit' is a function, not a command. folder-hooks execute commands
Ahh. I understand. Thanks for pointing this out.
not functions. However, the 'push' and 'exec' commands will execute
functions. So one solution would be this:
Hi,
I intend to use mutt in the feature for reading/writing emails. However,
besides some defaults that seem strange to me, it is good. But I am
experiencing problems with IMAP.
Scenario:
Our companies imap server is a dovecot imap server, migrated from an earlier
courier imap. So this one has
31 matches
Mail list logo
