Steve -- ...and then Steve Talley said... % % If mutt has the ability to allow the user to edit a message, and then % automatically save it to the mail folder, and delete the orignal, why % shouldn't it be able to do the same with an arbitrary shell script?
It can -- just as you've defined it within your macro :-) Don't think of it as a hack. Think of it as a wonderful example of configurable tools coming together to become greater than the sum of their parts. Think of it as unlimited extensibility in action. Or write your own patch ;-) Seriously, though, what's wrong with the macro? Once it's defined it's taken care of and you never have to look back at it. Is the idea of using a macro somehow distasteful, or something else? I really don't get it, so sell me on the idea. If you had such a filter-message command, you'd still have to tell it what script to use for the filter, so you'd probably end up writing a macro anyway because, even with the shortest possible script names (which can get confusing on that point alone) you'd still have to press the bound key, at least one script name key, and the enter key -- and since one letter is a pretty unreasonable assumption, you can figure that a macro will save you at least a half-dozen keystrokes -- which is certainly enough to make it a probability in my book. % % Thanks, HTH & HAND % % Steve :-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!
msg25853/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
