.
If thats true, then the problem I am currently stuck on should be fairly simple
to solve. So some explanations, then my question:
I want to write a script that _asks_ the user, if he wants to send a return
receipt (note how that differs from your assumption that a macro would be
suffice. For me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-24-07 10:42]:
I want to write a script that _asks_ the user, if he wants to send a return
receipt (note how that differs from your assumption that a macro would be
suffice. For me it wouldn't because w/o
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Mon 22.Oct'07 at 20:45:53 +0200 -=
HTML mails, hmm. Bad thing. I don't like, nor do I write them
myself, but receiving them (because some suppliers think they
don't have to follow my wish if I ask them to not do so) is very
uncomfortable in mutt. But its just
=- Derek Martin wrote on Mon 22.Oct'07 at 11:46:26 -0400 -=
But still, I want my mailer to do everything related to the normal
processing of mail, mostly without any fuss from me. I should only
have to make a fuss if what I want to do is unusual -- which this
isn't.
a) how to determine usual
=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 10:58:52 -0400 -=
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Actually, one of the things that makes mutt suck less than other
MUAs is that it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of
little-used features to cause bloat, bugs,
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:48:24 +0200 -=
After all its not too hard to achieve all this, but its wasted
effort, as with a lot of care you cannot guarantee that this will
run in a few days, weeks or months because admin could decide to
remove just one of the tools you
=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 7:33:46 -0400 -=
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. Mutt should implement
features that are commonly implemented in
=- Derek Martin wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 18:32:00 -0400 -=
If your pet feature is minimal code, but the developers don't want
to include it because what you're asking is already possible another
way -- just maintain a local patch for it.
So have I, and it sucks.
I agree, in general.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 17:39:49 -0400 -=
If a function is e-mail related, and commonly supported by other
mailers, then it seems to me Mutt should have built-in support for
it too. Mutt is a Mail USER Agent (not a mail DEVELOPER agent),
and it should interoperate with other
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Mon 22.Oct'07 at 15:37:45 +0200 -=
I don't think that the term 'harmful' needs an explination in
whats mutt about. Harmful is what affects mutt in any negative
way. Thats not about philosophy, but about technical matters.
Well, ... your viewpoint is limited 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
=- Derek Martin wrote on Sun 21.Oct'07 at 20:55:07 -0400 -=
{...} with its major goal being to suck less than the other mail
clients. It says the latter explicitly on its home page. Inasmuch
as it does not implement standard features offered by other
clients, it is a failure in that goal.
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Tue 23.Oct'07 at 20:28:41 +0200 -=
Because i face the fact that it is _impossible_ to convince you.
You exepect us to prove that the feature request is valid,
No, I see your point, you don't have to convince me nor prove
anything. I'm absolutely clear about your
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 08:55:07PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Just because you know when somebody has seen a mail 1st time, it
doesn't mean it will be processed faster thereafter.
This is not why return receipts exist.
They exist so that the receiver can say, I know you saw my e-mail, I
have
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 03:37:45PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
No. It is not important to _me_. It is important, because it is wideley
used in business environments and supported by _every_ mua used in
business environments, which makes it potentially used, which makes it
important if you
Am 2007-10-11 11:28:46, schrieb David Champion:
This is correct. Mutt doesn't internally support MDNs. A patch has
been posted by Werner Koch, but it might not be current. Check the
mutt-dev archives.
Does this only mean, sending of MDN's or receiving?
I use mutt from Debian and sometimes
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:46:26AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Yes, in my eyes this is good. Like always if certain features for
surveillance or monitoring are available, people want to use it. So
it is far better to not implement them.
You did know that Mutt is one of the most configurable mail
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.
If your boss is going to ask you that question, then the next thing
out of 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
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Thu 18.Oct'07 at 20:52:22 +0200 -=
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.
Before we (you or I) can judge
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,
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 22:38:05 -0400 -=
Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not
to code their ideology into it.
Why is that so?
It's not like you're forced such a ideology-loaded tool or are
entitled to use the work of somebody else against
Hi,
* Patrick Schoenfeld [07-10-18 20:52:22 +0200] wrote:
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
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
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
I don't know whats those 'many other', but mutt does support nearly all
common email features I am aware off. It even supports Delivery Status
Notifications that are (as far as I can see that) less wideley supported
and
On 2007-10-17, Stephan Seitz wrote
What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your
concern if and when a user reads your mail.
Mr. Schoenfeld has stated several times in this thread that he is trying
to respond to requests for a return receipt from his *customers*.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
I don't know whats those 'many other', but mutt does support nearly all
common email features I am aware off. It even supports Delivery Status
Notifications that
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
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:04:34PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid
waste of work. If the maintainers don't want to maintain the code,
then they probably should stop being
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
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Actually, one of the things that makes mutt suck less than other MUAs is that
it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of little-used features to cause
bloat, bugs, user confusion, and UI complication for no real added benefit.
As
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
What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your
concern if and when a user reads your mail. Such a feature should never be
part of mutt. Besides if you are sending a mail to more than one recipient
or an alias, you will get a notification from every recipient.
Quoting Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of
your concern if and when a user reads your mail.
Such a feature should never be part of mutt.
It is not of the sender's concern _only_ when the recipient says so.
The recipient
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 12:17:08 -0400 -=
The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly
differently, often in ways that we never think of.
So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental?
If nobody does, where should moral come from?
If somebody does, why is
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
In fact, I couldn't care less about mail receipts myself on a
technical level. The reason I got involved in this debate is
because I can't agree that a tool should decide whether a feature
is socially appropriate or not for its users.
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 9:50:41 +0200 -=
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.
Hum... now we are at preference level and
=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 15:22:41 -0400 -=
Taking this argument to extremes, Mutt can contain *NO CODE* and that
argument still applies. The user is still free to implement whatever
missing features he wants, using shell scripts to glue together
self-written programs and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-17-07 09:51]:
Actually, one of the things that makes mutt suck less than other MUAs
is that it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of little-used
features to cause bloat, bugs, user confusion, and UI
On 10/17/07 15:37, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[snip]
As a related example, I'm still disappointed SMTP support got added.
agreed, repetition of a function already provided by default
installation of all linux distros that I am familiar. It's akin to
including an editor, html browser, picture
Quoting Rado S [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 12:17:08 -0400 -=
The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly
differently, often in ways that we never think of.
So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental?
If nobody does, where should moral come
=- David Champion wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 10:42:41 -0500 -=
If your business environment requires MDN replies, then the upshot
is that mutt is regarded as unacceptable in the business
environment. Nobody wins.
Depends on what you want to achieve: do we want mutt to be
acceptable in the
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
If nobody does, where should moral come from?
If somebody does, why is anyone more qualified than the other?
If all are the same, why not the coder(s)?
Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
code their
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:33:46AM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:04:34PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid
waste of work. If the maintainers don't
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:06PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
code their ideology into it. (well as far as software tools are
concerned)
Why is that so?
It's not like
Quoting Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The concept of mail receipts is poorly designed; there is no way to implement
a reliable receipt notification system with SMTP mail. *Many* of the better
mail packages therefore do not implement support for it -- why have a feature
if you *know* it
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:18:05AM EDT, Jing Xue wrote:
Quoting Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The concept of mail receipts is poorly designed; there is no way to
implement
a reliable receipt notification system with SMTP mail. *Many* of the
better
mail packages therefore do not
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
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 21:24:22 +0200 -=
In fact mutt is the only mailer I found not supporting it
Return-receipts being standard replies with a preformatted content
(nothing special about them), mutt _does_ support them, just not
built-in as you would like it to be so
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
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 22:26:05 +0200 -=
Additional the feature (to be comparable) it is a notification
that the sender asked for a return receipt and it is a
one-action-thing to confirm this.
{...}
You keep talking like it was a simple configuration change, but
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Tue 16.Oct'07 at 21:24:22 +0200 -=
In fact mutt is the only mailer I found not supporting it
Return-receipts being standard replies with a preformatted content
(nothing special about them), mutt _does_
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
It's not a bug but a feature that not everything that is possible is
built-in but must/can be accomplished elsewhere.
I have always, and still do find this argument to be um, less than
well
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:08:24PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
It's not a bug but a feature that not everything that is possible is
built-in but must/can be accomplished elsewhere.
I have
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
[..]
Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid
waste of work. If the maintainers don't want to maintain the code,
then they probably should stop being maintainers.
Please be more specific.
What are
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 12:40:08AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
No. You get me wrong, repeatedly. I'm asking for a proof that
a message has reached a single role. It does not matter if more then one
person can actually be the role.
Hm, do you mean, it is enough for you if the last server
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 12:40:08AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
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
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 12:58:52PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, October 13 at 12:50 PM, quoth Patrick Schoenfeld:
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
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:13:11PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
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
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 07:58:16PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
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
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
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Thu 11.Oct'07 at 20:53:41 +0200 -=
Simply send a regular reply: Seen and will do it.
Thanks for the advice, but this ain't a solution.
Why not?
What is it different from what you're looking for?
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Fri 12.Oct'07 at 12:33:00 +0200
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,
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Fri 12.Oct'07 at 20:22:41 +0200 -=
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 08:22 PM, quoth Patrick Schoenfeld:
Well, mutt can a lot but as I figured it does not support mail
notificiation as usual, but yes possibly there are ways to reach the
goal of mail notifications anyway -- at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 02:03 PM, quoth Kyle Wheeler:
message-hook '~h Disposition-Notification-To:' \
'pipe-messagesend-mdn.shenter'
On considering, I think this would actually be better written:
message-hook '~N ~h
On 10/12/07 20:22, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Well, mutt can a lot but as I figured it does not support mail notificiation
as
usual, but yes possibly there are ways to reach the goal of mail notifications
anyway -- at least somewhat like that. The problem is that I actually don't
see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 08:22 PM, quoth Patrick Schoenfeld:
E.g. is it possible somehow with macros to send out a specific
template as the reply to a customer?
Yes.
How? Any hint on appropriate docs would suffice.
Oh, come on, the appropriate
Well, the first thing that springs to my mind is some sort of
message-hook (since that's what triggers when you view a message).
The difficulty with this approach is that you don't want to send an MDN
response any time you read the message, so you need to track whether the
message has ever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 03:06 PM, quoth David Champion:
Well, the first thing that springs to my mind is some sort of
message-hook (since that's what triggers when you view a message).
The difficulty with this approach is that you don't want to
The difficulty with this approach is that you don't want to send an MDN
response any time you read the message, so you need to track whether the
message has ever been read and MDN-replied to. You can do this with
What? Poppycock. If the New flag is insufficient (and I would argue it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 12 at 08:00 PM, quoth David Champion:
The patch certainly provides better functionality than hooks,
macros, and scripts do, given the usual constraints.
I don't see what that missing functionality might be. Maybe I'm
missing
Hi,
we have customers that send as jobs per email. Some of them set the I want to
receive a return receipt-option which means that I (as the receipient) am
asked if I want to send a return receipt. Technically the header set is
Return-Receipt-To: with the email adress of the sender. It has become
=- schoenfeld / in-medias-res wrote on Thu 11.Oct'07 at 17:43:27 +0200 -=
Some of them set the I want to receive a return receipt-option
which means that I (as the receipient) am asked if I want to send
a return receipt.
Simply send a regular reply: Seen and will do it.
--
© Rado S. -- You
asked if we want to send such a return receipt. Is this configurable? I also
read somewhere that mutt doesn't support that but I can't believe that. Is
that
true?
This is correct. Mutt doesn't internally support MDNs. A patch has
been posted by Werner Koch, but it might not be current.
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
Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
87 matches
Mail list logo
