Behaviour of viewing an attachment
Hi List. In mutt 1.5.23 (from repo), when I'd like to view a message part in a browser, I'd type "v", view the attachment menu, etc. On mutt from source (1.7.1), that same action won't trigger firefox, but rather keep viewing the attachment using w3m (which is great as a default in the pager, but if I'm already in the attachment menu, it means I'm looking for something extra). I've copied /etc/mailcap to $muttHOME/etc. Here's the debug sequence from 1.7.1 [2016-11-02 08:35:36] Checking mailcap file: /home/guy/.mailcap [2016-11-02 08:35:36] Checking mailcap file: /home/guy/apps/mutt/share/mutt/mailcap [2016-11-02 08:35:36] Checking mailcap file: /home/guy/apps/mutt/etc/mailcap [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:35:36] mailcap entry: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.database; soffice --nologo --base '%s'; edit=soffic and from 1.5.23 [2016-11-02 08:32:52] Checking mailcap file: /home/guy/.mailcap [2016-11-02 08:32:52] Checking mailcap file: /usr/share/mutt/mailcap [2016-11-02 08:32:52] Checking mailcap file: /etc/mailcap [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: [2016-11-02 08:32:52] mailcap entry: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.database; soffice --nologo --base '%s'; edit=soffic any ideas ? Thank you. -- Guy Gold Cambridge, Massachusetts
pass different "gpg --encrypt-to" when using different .muttrc ?
Hi list, I have this simple issue which has proven to be not-so-simple :) I have "encrypt-to" set in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf, which enables me to decrypt my own sent email. However, I also have a .muttrc for gmail, and I'd like to "encrypt-to" my sent gmail with a different key than the one specified in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf I've read there should be a patch enabling: "pgp_encrypt_self" - but, this is not legal in my muttrc. Is there any way to pass a different "encrypt-to" to gpg according to the .muttrc I'm running ? (I've tried using gpg.rc - but then too, ened up with the same issue- one default key used.) Thank you. -- Guy Gold Cambridge, Massachusetts
Re: group reply
A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original message ? On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote: > I don't recall this happening before. I replied to > a message using 'g' and the message author was not > included in the list of recipients of my reply. > > I did not notice the omission until the author > mentioned she did not get my reply. But I went > back to the original message and typed 'g' and > she is not in the recipient list. > > Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original > message to run the test. Turns out saving that > message saved it to the first recipients file > rather than the authors file. > > I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ... > > Any clue what might cause this? > > Jon > -- > Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com > 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) > Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C) > -- Guy Gold Cambridge, Massachusetts
Re: Sidebar patch - where can I find user instructions for using it?
I'll piggy back on this issue, I hope it's alright. repo-installed-patched mutt on Ubuntu Mutt 1.5.24 (2015-08-30) I can't make the sidebar pick a folder from my IMAP server. It errors out with something like: "no such folder ... /home/$user/Maildir" Honestly, it's been two years since I've used the sidebar, and back then it was per the tip from Lunar, and I used local Maildir. Should the patch work with an IMAP connection ? Thank you. On Thu,Sep 08 01:41:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote: > Useful indeed. However there are several differences from the > cited webpage and my instance of 1.7.0 (Fedora 24). > > Some examples: > > toggle sidebar_visible can use > sidebar-toggle-visible > > sidebar-scroll-up and sidebar-scroll-down are > sidebar-page-up and sidebar-page-down > > in addition to sidebar-next and sidebar-prev there are also > sidebar-next-new and sidebar-prev-new > > jon -- Guy Gold Cambridge, Massachusetts
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 23May2014 19:08, Guy Gold g...@merl.com wrote: Confidential? Really? Only if you really want it to be...(send hooks, work in progress) Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:15:05PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:05:13PM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:50:55PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:14:20PM EDT Derek Martin └─ Suppose your message of 06:50PM was not yet arrived to the mailbox. That makes Derek's message of 4:14PM more recent than the most recent message of the other subthread (David's, of 04:05PM). So Derek's _subthread_ (one message long) is listed above _my_ subthread (running from 07:22PMmay22 to David at 04:05PMmay23). So Derek's thread is listed first. Then your reply to my subthread arrived, and it makes that subthread newer than Derek's. So that subthread moves up above Derek. Does this explain the behaviour? Yes, I believe it does. I copied the state of thread before this reply - that I'm writing right now, and will see how this reply changes things. -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri,May 23 11:37:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ Ok, question 1: do you use %d or %D for the date field in your $index_format string? [..] Importantly, %D is the message date in your local time zone. If you use %d, you get the sender's time zone (i.e., as it is in the message header), and that will vary widely. Quite possibly producing the listing above. my index_format: set index_format=%?M? ?%2Z %15D %-20.20F %s Here is the same thread in my mail folder (with some stuff removed after the ) to make the lines fit. 18May2014 18:14 list mail - ┌ 18May2014 04:51 Kevin J. McCart - ┌ 18May2014 16:58 Karl Voit - │ ┌ 18May2014 11:51 To Karl Voit- │ ┌ 18May2014 09:02 Gary Johnson- │ ├ 18May2014 07:59 Karl Voit - │┌ 18May2014 07:04 Mike Glover - ├ 18May2014 02:19 Karl Voit - Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Notice that all the dates within a given subthread ore in order? This makes me think you do not have an ordering problem but a display problem. That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed, with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts of my .muttrc breaking it. -- Guy Gold MERL Computer Services g...@merl.com
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:22:54AM -0500, David Champion wrote: * On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote: That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed, with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts of my .muttrc breaking it. Sort_aux=last-date-received will put the threads in chronological order, with the most recently updated threads (i.e. those with the newest messages in the thread) later in the sort. That is all true. But, I cannot explain some of the behaviour I'm getting. Notice the two threads here: The first one, is sorted very well according to what I expect. The second one has some flaws with regards to the sort. It looks like, once authors of messages write to others (rather than replying one after another, chronologically), that's when the mix-up happens. Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy┬─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit│ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─ -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:05:13PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy┬─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─Re: Writing a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit│ └─ Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─ These both look correct, to me, for sort_aux=reverse-last-date[-received]. Whether sort=threads or sort=reverse-threads is irrelevant in this case, since you're showing only one thread. What looks wrong to you? David, I understand. Thank you for clearing it up. ===CONFIDENTIAL=== -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
===CONFIDENTIAL=== On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. Why are you winking at me? This is from a different thread, recognize the composer ? Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is 'messed' in single quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get why. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ This is normal and expected. The messages form a tree (a directed graph) which shows the relationship of what was replied to. They ARE in chronological order... if you consider that; i.e. each individual branch of the tree is in chronological order. This ordering is important, because it enables you to visually see the relationship between messages from a particular branch of the thread, so you can ignore them if you aren't interested in that branch (like if someone posts something tangential to the thread). I understand, and that was one of my suspicions, and, I was not sure if this falls under normal thread behaviour, or not. I've been trying to reflect on this idea for quite some time now, and I guess, I can finally lay it to rest. When it happens, though, sometimes I do see irregular behaviour. e.g : right in this current thread, when I opened the mutt mailbox, your messages, from 4:14PM, was right above Cameron's message from 7:22PM. At that point, I thought - that's because your responding directly to my message. Then, I refreshed my index for some other reason, and the index shifted to what you see now: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads, order in question Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:15:05PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:05:13PM EDT David Champion │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:50:55PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o │ └─ Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:14:20PM EDT Derek Martin └─ Just to clarify things up, which one of the two instances would you consider at valid? Should your 4:14 message being right below my OP, or where it is, as you see in the paste ? -- GG
Display of threads, order in question
Greetings, mutt users. Here are the relevant parts from .muutrc: set sort=threads set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received The above places the thread with the newest message on top, with the next newest under it, an so on. Reading through .muttrc, It's not the best way to sort, but, I got used it. I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted not-really-through-date-received. In the same thread, a message from 14:00 will display above a message from 13:59, and the same goes for messages days apart. On a thread with 3+ messages, I start to sort messages mentally, in order to follow correct order. Is it a valid function of how mutt sorts threads, or, am I to blame ? Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing list, is presented, in my mutt index. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ Thank you. -- GG
Re: Display of threads, order in question
On Fri,May 23 09:22:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Does not work for me, no. I'm trying to get 'date' to be the main sorting criteria. In the example I provided, ideally, the two messages from the 18th, would be at the bottom of the thread, with the very newest one, May 18,2:28PM as the last one listed. The question is: why date-received instead of date? For me, date is the relevant criterion. Yes, it can be date, though that yields the same results. Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing list, is presented, in my mutt index. Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy├─ Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─ Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─ Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─ Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─ Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit│ └─ Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─ I'm not sure what you dislike in this listing. if the entire thread was unread, and I needed to get to the three newest messages, I would have had to bounce around a bit. If this was a 22 message count thread, it would have been a bit harsh. In that case, I re-sort the index, non-threaded, and that way, I'm able to get the actual chronological order of messages, but, then I lose the threaded advantage. -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote: * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]: If, vim -c ':r /path/to/file' is used, what happens in mutt is, vim gets two files to edit, /path/to/file and /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited. Not at all. Did you try it? You would have two files to edit if you did: vim -c :e /path/to/file or vim /path/to/file But not with: vim -c :r /path/to/file Jean-Rene, you were right. I tried using just vim -c :r /path/to/file ,(with escaped quotes, just to be safe), and it worked fine. -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
Derek: On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote: Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is 'messed' in single quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get why. Are you implying that the single quotes should have been escaped then ? ;) -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote: Not at all. Did you try it? You would have two files to edit if you did: vim -c :e /path/to/file or vim /path/to/file But not with: vim -c :r /path/to/file I did try it, and arrived to the !cat idea for that reason, but, for the sake of being 100% sure, I'll try it again and report back. Maybe have a different mapping for 'e' in the index versus the compose menu? Sneaky.. but, it could work. -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 02:58:PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the whole set editor=... bit. Thank you. Double quoiting and escaping did it right. Here's the exact way it is now, in .muttrc : send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= vim -c \:r \!cat /path/to/file\' -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 03:14:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote: * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]: send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= vim -c \:r \!cat /path/to/file\' Is it me or is this a useless use of cat? vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' = vim -c ':r /path/to/file' Yes, and no. While issuing this command from the shell itself, or from vim itself does not call for !cat, using this in a send-hook left me no choice but to use !cat. If, vim -c ':r /path/to/file' is used, what happens in mutt is, vim gets two files to edit, /path/to/file and /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited. That , creates a mess of itself. I'm still far from solving this issue though, the initial !cat works fine now, however- if I :wq from the editor into the 'ready to send' screen in mutt, (where the From: and Subject: can be edited), and, then I choose to go back an re-edit my email, the !cat action takes place again - and that's not desired. -- GG
Correct syntax of send hook
Greetings List. I'm trying to add this command: vim -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' to be used in a send hook : send-hook ~t...@domain.com set editor= vim ':r !cat /tmp/bla' The contents of /tmp/file should then be 'cat ' into the new email. While the above works fine from the main declaration in my muttrc (set editor=)_, I can't seem to hit it with the right syntax in the send hook. Your help is appreciated. -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 12:24:AM, Christian Brabandt wrote: I am surprised, this works for your normal editor command. From my understanding, Vim should try to open 2 files, namely ':r !cat /tmp/bla' and the /tmp/mutt-... (which is your actual mail template. To make this work, you should at least add the -c command to vim, to make sure, you want the argument be interpreted as a command to execute on startup. Hi Christian, Yes, you are right, and I forgot to place '-c' in the macro I posted on the email, but - I do have it in the actual macro in vimrc. The reason I'm using the !cat option is - like you mentioned, if I only use :r /tmp/file, then, things get 'messed' up. And, while in mutt, I find out that I'm editing two files, not good.. The usage of -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' does solve the issue of editing two files, but, I cannot seem to get the send-hook correct, and depending on how/where I place my quotes, I get different errors. - Which is troubling, because I do have other send-hooks defined and working well. -- GG
Re: mark_old friends
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Andre Klärner kan...@ak-online.be wrote: How do I really get mutt to consider mails marked as old and marked as new to be the same thing when I am using maildir. HI Andre, I was able to that, but, not via control of mutt, via control of the Mail-server (Dovecot) , (its been a while since I've done that, and it's not an active solution, I can dig the .conf files from backup if needed. ) AFAIK, mutt interfaces with Exim upon its sending email, when you 'open' mutt for reading, then you're interfacing with the mail server, qpop/dovecot or Gmail. I tuned the refresh rate of the Maildir on dovecot to be slower ( it was 10 seconds on default, if I remember right ) , then, say, Thunderbird read an email, and considered it as read , the mail server (Dovecot) did not tag it as old and moved it to /cur , while (to my pleasant surprise ) mutt and my android phone where smart enough to know that the messages were read. I was mainly doing this so I'll be able to run some scripts on the server's side and wanted email-files to be left under /new and not moved to /cur . -- Guy Gold
Threads / View
Greetings list. Problem : Cannot get latest thread on top, with newest message on bottom (of thread), while keeping all other messages in the thread in correct chronological order. I would like the thread with the newest message to display on top of the view, and to be sorted : -- oldest msg (in thread) -one after that (newer) one after that (newer) newest msg in thread If , I do not attempt to place the entire thread on top of the view , then, the above sorting works well. Meaning, if the newest thread is at the bottom of the page, then, the messages within that thread, are sorted by the order noted previously. However, if I place the thread on top of the page, the messages within the the thread , seem to be out of order . My current .muttrc states: set sort=threads set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received I did try various combinations of the above, according to .muttrc, and, have been Googleing this matter on/ off for a while now. If the above is not possible, that would be an answer as well. Thank you, -- Guy Gold
Re: Threads / View
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: I believe you are out-of-luck. My current .muttrc states: set sort=threads set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received But, iiuc the docs state that sort_aux applies to the order threads are sorted and *not* the order of msgs within a thread. Greetings Patrick , Here's an extract from my .muttrc, I also should have stated that I'm using Mutt 1.5.21 , on Ubuntu 12.04 . However this behavior is the same on different distributions that I use. Begin=== #When sorting by threads, this variable controls how threads are sorted # in relation to other threads, and how the branches of the thread trees # are sorted. This can be set to any value that ``$sort'' can, except # threads (in that case, mutt will just use date-sent). You can also # specify the last- prefix in addition to the reverse- prefix, but last- # must come after reverse-. The last- prefix causes messages to be # sorted against its siblings by which has the last descendant, using # the rest of sort_aux as an ordering. For instance, set sort_aux=last- # date-received would mean that if a new message is received in a # thread, that thread becomes the last one displayed (or the first, if # you have set sort=reverse-threads.) Note: For reversed ``$sort'' # order $sort_aux is reversed again (which is not the right thing to do, # but kept to not break any existing configuration setting). End=== From the above, I conclude that set_sort_aux may have a say about how messages are arranged withing a thread. If, I could not get messages to appear in good order , within a thread, at all, then, my thoughts may have been different. All seems to be working fine, as long as I keep my newest emails on the bottom of the list (and that's sort of counter-intuitive for me ) . Thank you . -- Guy Gold -- Guy Gold
Re: Threads / View
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Gregor Zattler telegr...@gmx.net wrote: I have the same setup and it does not feel counter-intuitive too me since I use this: folder-hook . 'push last-entrycurrent-bottomnext-new' #when changing to a mail folder go to its newest or last entry This way when changing to a mail folder the cursor or location bar stays at the very last OR the oldest new message. I don't have to scroll/jump to the end of the index. Greetings Gregor, I see what you mean. In my setup, Mutt jumps to the first message as well. -- Guy Gold
