Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 04:57:48:PM -0700 Steve Talley wrote: > > The pipe command doesn't save the output of the command as a new > > version of the message. It also doesn't mark the original message > > as deleted. > > Right. But why not write a macro which: > > 1) pipes the message to a command (this command may be a shell > script using another instance of Mutt to send the *changed* mail > to yourself),
What happens if the filter modifies the To: header? ;) Yes, I know I could use pipe + procmail/anotherinstanceofmutt/... to do this but it seems as much of a hack as setting $editor before invoking <edit-message>. Since mutt has the <pipe-message> functionality, and mutt has the <edit-message> functionality, why shouldn't it combine the two to create <filter-message> to save its users from the multitudes of hacks/workarounds? At any rate, thanks for your help! Steve
