David T-G wrote: > 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 :-) > > 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.
The problem I see is that it can get a bit ugly. Suppose my default $editor is something ridiculously long, like: vi -o2 -e -b '+/^subject' '+s/^subject/SuBJeCt/i' '+/^$/' Then I have to reset it in every macro: macro index F :set editor="sleep 1; mailformat -m -t -s -c -q -i"<return>e:set editor="vi -o2 -e -b +/^subject +s/^subject/SuBJeCt/i +/^$/"<return> macro index G :set editor="sleep 1; grep -v blah"<return>e:set editor="vi -o2 -e -b +/^subject +s/^subject/SuBJeCt/i +/^$/"<return> ... And yes, I could probably change it to: macro index F :set editor="sleep 1; mailformat -m -t -s -c -q -i"<return>e:source ~/.mutt/reseteditor<return> macro index G :set editor="sleep 1; grep -v blah"<return>e:source ~/.mutt/reseteditor<return> ... but that's just as ugly. > 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. Yes, but the macros would be much simpler: macro index F "<filter-message>mailformat -m -t -s -c -q -i\n" macro index G "<filter-message>grep -v blah\n" ... Thanks, Steve