On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:37:49 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:07:48 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
> wrote:
> > Right now my plan is to do something like this:
> >
> > 1) look for my email address in To/Cc
> > 2) look for my email in "for " in Received headers
> > 3) look for my email in
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:07:48 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
wrote:
> Right now my plan is to do something like this:
>
> 1) look for my email address in To/Cc
> 2) look for my email in "for " in Received headers
> 3) look for my email in X-Original-To
> 4) look for the domain of my email in Received
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:07:48 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
Right now my plan is to do something like this:
1) look for my email address in To/Cc
2) look for my email in for em...@add.res in Received headers
3) look for my email in X-Original-To
4) look for the domain of
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:37:49 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:07:48 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org
wrote:
Right now my plan is to do something like this:
1) look for my email address in To/Cc
2) look for my email in for em...@add.res in
On 2010-04-07, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
> standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
> be more robust to deal with different variations.
This code might be useful for some, but I know it is not being useful
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:59:14 +0200, "Sebastian Spaeth" wrote:
> On 2010-04-07, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> >
> > The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
> > standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
> > be more robust to deal with different variations.
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:38:29 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
wrote:
> The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
> standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
> be more robust to deal with different variations.
Thanks for maintaining this. I'll have to fiddle
The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
be more robust to deal with different variations.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel
---
notmuch-reply.c | 23 +--
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+),
The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
be more robust to deal with different variations.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org
---
notmuch-reply.c | 23 +--
1 files
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:38:29 -0700, Dirk Hohndel hohn...@infradead.org wrote:
The previous code made too many assumptions about the (sadly not
standardized) format of the Received headers. This version should
be more robust to deal with different variations.
Thanks for maintaining this. I'll
10 matches
Mail list logo