Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Tobias Nijweide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Well, that's not exactly true. Hal DeVore, who did the exmh > implementation, said that he agreed it belonged in nmh proper. I also > expressed that I'd be willing to commit your changes (never got around > to it, though -- one of many items that've been sitting in my >

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Scott Blachowicz
Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > All we care about is any argument starting with a '+', so nothing > complex is required. Actually...that's not quite complete...what we care about is any argument starting with a '+' that's not an argument to some other argument. Usage: scan [+fo

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Dan Harkless
Tobias Nijweide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > * I have a folder where I always want to use a different '-form' > > option for scan. > > Don't have a solution for this. You could code a variant of the patches > I mention below, with (recursive) searching of format file

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Earl Hood
On June 27, 2002 at 15:08, Scott Blachowicz wrote: > Yeah...I'd thought of that, but the arg list parsing problem (that you > mentioned) is what made me want to check to see if anyone had done > a more general solution. Also, I kinda vaguely remembered that exmh had > something like this (folder-

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Scott Blachowicz
Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On June 27, 2002 at 21:54, Tobias Nijweide wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > * I have a folder where I always want to use a different '-form' > > > option for scan. > > > > Don't have a solution for this. You could code a variant of the patches >

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Earl Hood
On June 27, 2002 at 21:54, Tobias Nijweide wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > * I have a folder where I always want to use a different '-form' > > option for scan. > > Don't have a solution for this. You could code a variant of the patches > I mention below, with (recursive) searching of form

Re: folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Tobias Nijweide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > * I have a folder where I always want to use a different '-form' > option for scan. Don't have a solution for this. You could code a variant of the patches I mention below, with (recursive) searching of format files in maildirs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > * I reply to

folder-specific defaults?

2002-06-27 Thread Scott Blachowicz
I was just wondering...I keep running into cases like these: * I have a folder where I always want to use a different '-form' option for scan. It's my +trash folder where my mailagent mail filtering files suspected spam and other stuff after adding a "X-Trashed-By" header explaining why...so

Re: problem w/ make install on MacOS X 10.1.5

2002-06-27 Thread Earl Hood
On June 27, 2002 at 01:03, "Dan Harkless" wrote: > Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Your problem could have been avoid if .PHONY was defined within > > the makefile. > Apparently no one ever used nmh on a case-insensitive OS before, or if they > did, they didn't report that "make instal

Re: problem w/ make install on MacOS X 10.1.5

2002-06-27 Thread Dan Harkless
Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On June 22, 2002 at 12:22, "Jon Stewart" wrote: > > > The problem is that Apple's HFS+ file system, which is the default and > > best-supported fs at the moment, is case preserving yet case insensitive. > > > > Thus, the INSTALL doc looks just the same t