On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 at 19:21:27 -0500, Dwight wrote: On Saturday, June 13,
2009, 2:54:10 PM, Marek Mikus wrote:
SETHEADER works here on XP, but not on Vista. and yes, the syntax is
the same on both machines.
Works on Vista for me - exactly the same syntax as I had running until
recently on
Hallo Dwight,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:21:27 -0500GMT (16-6-2009, 2:21 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
DAC SETHEADER works here on XP, but not on Vista. and yes, the syntax is
DAC the same on both machines.
Did you define the header you wanted to set in the account on the
Vista PC?
--
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 6:06:43 AM, Roelof Otten wrote:
DAC SETHEADER works here on XP, but not on Vista. and yes, the syntax is
DAC the same on both machines.
Did you define the header you wanted to set in the account on the
Vista PC?
to me, it looks the same as on my xp machine
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 1:24:55 AM, Robin Anson wrote:
Works on Vista for me - exactly the same syntax as I had running until
recently on XP.
following is my reply template
On %ODateEn, %OTimeLongEn, %OFROMNAME wrote:
%SINGLERE
%QUOTES
%SETHEADER(X-Rogue,:dcorrin:)%-
%Cursor
Hallo Dwight,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:23:04 -0500GMT (16-6-2009, 14:23 +0200, where
I live), you wrote:
DAC SETHEADER works here on XP, but not on Vista. and yes, the syntax is
DAC the same on both machines.
Did you define the header you wanted to set in the account on the
Vista PC?
DAC
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 7:38:36 AM, Roelof Otten wrote:
That's not what I meant.
Did you define the X-Rogue header at
Options - Preferences - Viewer/Editor - Message Headers?
who remembers all of what they did to make things on a computer 4 or 5
years ago, to switch? :blush:
--
Dwight
On Saturday, June 13, 2009, 2:54:10 PM, Marek Mikus wrote:
no, ADDHEADER adds value to header, while SETHEADER changes header, there
is no bug here.
SETHEADER works here on XP, but not on Vista. and yes, the syntax is
the same on both machines.
--
Dwight A. Corrin
316.303.9385 phone ahead
Hello Arjan,
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:31:38 +0200 GMT (14/Jun/09, 5:31 +0700 GMT),
Arjan de Groot wrote:
You can not change Message-ID and there is no need to change
In-Reply-To header which includes Message-ID of replied message.
AdG Let's not go nit-picking over which headers need changing or
Hello all,
Sunday, June 14, 2009, Arjan de Groot wrote:
You can not change Message-ID and there is no need to change
In-Reply-To header which includes Message-ID of replied message.
Let's not go nit-picking over which headers need changing or not.
You wrote examples and I am telling You,
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:00:37 +0200, Marek Mikus wrote:
Let's not go nit-picking over which headers need changing or not.
You wrote examples and I am telling You, these are bad samples, because
such headers are internal and must conform RFC.
I agree. Reply-To would have been a better example.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:15:38 +0200, Marek Mikus wrote:
What wonders me is why there are three different macro's (two of which
don't seem to work properly) that arguably serve the same purpose.
Typical known redundancy :-)
%HDRheader returns current message header
%HDRheader=text and %ADDHEADER
On Sat, 2009-06-13, Arjan de Groot wrote:
I have re-examined the help file but I still fail to see the
relevance of the %HDR macro's. Lots of regular RFC headers have a
- in them (Like Message-ID and In-Reply-To) and a macro that
can't handle it seems to be a bit superfluous.
My guess is
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:07:42 -0700, Bill McQuillan wrote:
My guess is that the %HDR macros were the first attempt to allow this
capabiity, but when it was discovered that the parser couldn't handle an
embedded - the %ADDHEADER and %SETHEADER macros were created which used a
quoted string for the
Hello all,
Saturday, June 13, 2009, Arjan de Groot wrote:
I have re-examined the help file but I still fail to see the
relevance of the %HDR macro's. Lots of regular RFC headers have a
- in them (Like Message-ID and In-Reply-To) and a macro that
can't handle it seems to be a bit superfluous.
Hello all,
Saturday, June 13, 2009, Arjan de Groot wrote:
My guess is that the %HDR macros were the first attempt to allow this
capabiity, but when it was discovered that the parser couldn't handle an
embedded - the %ADDHEADER and %SETHEADER macros were created which used a
quoted string for the
On zaterdag 13 juni 2009, 9:54:10 PM Marek Mikus wrote,
You can not change Message-ID and there is no need to change
In-Reply-To header which includes Message-ID of replied message.
Let's not go nit-picking over which headers need changing or not.
(X-Rogue is a header that doesn't need adding
On Saturday June 13 2009, 9:57:51 PM Marek Mikus wrote,
it is known that %HDR macro doesn't allow special chars and this
note is included in help.
I've been wondering about that. What is meant by special characters?
Does there exist A Definition Of special characters? I don't know.
Personally
On vrijdag 12 juni 2009, 1:02:20 AM Marek Mikus wrote,
I think this might be a bug in the %HDR macro but I'm not absolutely
sure. Maybe it needs some extra ()'s or s to make it work. I don't
know.
no, this macro doesn't allow dash, use %ADDHEADER(RFC Name,Value)
instead.
I tried using
Freitag, 12. Juni 2009 at 23:36, Arjan de Groot wrote:
What wonders me is why there are three different macro's (two of which
don't seem to work properly) that arguably serve the same purpose.
Typical known redundancy :-)
--
With kind Regards
Jens Franik
mailto:je...@gmx.de
Picture of me?
Hello Jens,
What wonders me is why there are three different macro's (two of which
don't seem to work properly) that arguably serve the same purpose.
Typical known redundancy :-)
Nope. Read the definitions in Help. 'Add text' is not the same than
'Replace text'.
--
Best regards,
Miguel
Hello all,
Saturday, June 13, 2009, Jens Franik wrote:
What wonders me is why there are three different macro's (two of which
don't seem to work properly) that arguably serve the same purpose.
Typical known redundancy :-)
%HDRheader returns current message header
%HDRheader=text and
Hello all,
Friday, June 12, 2009, Arjan de Groot wrote:
When trying to use this macro there is however a problem. If there is
a - in the header's RFC name (like in User-Agent) it doesn't work.
For example, if I put %HDRUser-Agent='The Beta!' in a template, my
message-body (literally) starts
22 matches
Mail list logo
