Andreas -- ...and then Andreas Herceg said... % % On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 10:04:37AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % | % | ...and then Andreas Herceg said... % | % % | % On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:10:09AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % | % | % | % | ...and then Andreas Herceg said... % | % | % % | ... % | % | % my_hdr X-Label: coprija % | % | % | % | Gaack! That means that every mail from you has a populated X-Label: % | % | field (in this case it was "asdf"; I was sure confused about *that*), % | % | which messes *me* up! % % OK, I did not know that X-Label is that common. Now I thought of just % defining 'X-Coprija: coprija'.
It was introduced to mutt a while back as a uniform way to take notes on a message, as I replied to Magnus. See the archives for its discussion; it was merged into the 1.3 tree and is now stock. X-Coprija: makes sense; it matters to you and nobody else is likely to notice it. That is, if it's even in every email that goes out everywhere; you might not want this functionality for, say, list mail (IIRC you said that you're copying your work address and then processing the mail there; maybe it's only for work mail). If you were triggering something in mutt instead of in procmail then it might make sense, but you can tell mutt to act on arbitrary headers, too, so X-Coprija works for you either way. And thanks :-) % % Now I would like to know if this would be against some standard which I % do not know. No, X-* is for defining your own headers, and there is no end to the list of them :-) It's simply that mutt specifically recognizes X-Label: just like other headers rather than ignoring them like other X-* vanity headers. % % % Andreas Herceg % % -- % [EMAIL PROTECTED] :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg23382/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
