Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > > Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Since I get tired of typing X-TMDA: and not fortunate enough > > to use tmda.el, I have Mutt insert the header by default on > > every new message. I can populate it if I want, or just > > leave it blank and there's no ill-effect. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems like a real > PITA.
What's more of a PITA is typing it in all the time. Of course, I could write a ViM macro to do it for me. > I'm curious why you need to set X-TMDA: so often? I set it > only once in a blue moon myself (usually just to raise my > dated timeout). I'm on so many different mailing lists that I'm constantly playing with my configuration. I'm also e-mailing people all the time whom I've not whitelisted, so I gotta bare=append a lot. > Is the outgoing filter file logic not flexible enough to do > what you need to do? Oh, it can do everything. But it's tough to edit a file when I wanna make a quick change for something. TMDA's fluxuating so much that I'm always experimenting. > Relying solely on your outgoing filter has the advantage of > making everything transparent, rather than you having to > remember to remove or edit the X-TMDA: header during each > composition. I've found that I don't remember what I've put in the file half the time because I'm always changing it. I'm considering writing a wrapper for my editor which takes the outgoing filter and the outgoing message's headers into consideration and tells me exactly what's going to happen the message if I don't modify TMDA action. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
