Re: Correct syntax of send hook
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]: > If," vim -c ':r /path/to/file' " is used, what happens in mutt > is, vim gets two files to edit, "/path/to/file" and > /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited. Not at all. Did you try it? You would have two files to edit if you did: vim -c ":e /path/to/file" or vim /path/to/file But not with: vim -c ":r /path/to/file" > I'm still far from solving this issue though, the initial !cat > works fine now, however- if I :wq from the editor into the 'ready > to send' screen in mutt, (where the From: and Subject: can be > edited), and, then I choose to go back an re-edit my email, the > !cat action takes place again - and that's not desired. Maybe have a different mapping for 'e' in the index versus the compose menu? -- JR
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 03:14:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote: > * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]: > > send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat > > /path/to/file\""' > > Is it me or is this a useless use of cat? > > vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file' Yes, and no. While issuing this command from the shell itself, or from vim itself does not call for !cat, using this in a send-hook left me no choice but to use !cat. If," vim -c ':r /path/to/file' " is used, what happens in mutt is, vim gets two files to edit, "/path/to/file" and /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited. That , creates a mess of itself. I'm still far from solving this issue though, the initial !cat works fine now, however- if I :wq from the editor into the 'ready to send' screen in mutt, (where the From: and Subject: can be edited), and, then I choose to go back an re-edit my email, the !cat action takes place again - and that's not desired. -- GG
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]: > send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat > /path/to/file\""' Is it me or is this a useless use of cat? vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file' -- JR
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
On Fri,May 09 02:58:PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead > of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single > quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the > whole "set editor=..." bit. Thank you. Double quoiting and escaping did it right. Here's the exact way it is now, in .muttrc : send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat /path/to/file\""' -- GG
Re: disabling shell-escape
* On 09 May 2014, Shawn Zaidermann wrote: > Is there a way to completely disable the shell-escape feature? You can unbind the key (or bind it to no-op), but the user can still rebind it unless you also remove the enter-command binding (preventing them from entering a bind command). Also ensure that they cannot source any muttrc files (check bindings for source macros), and cannot edit any muttrc files that the program is sourcing. Your use case might help to answer more exactly. To avoid this complexity, source code changes are the only option. There is no irreversible "restricted" mode that does all this automatically. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Are there arguments to the pipe command
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:38:24AM +0200, s...@thetabiz.com wrote: > I am thinking of something like: |process_email.pl %from %to %subject That question of me, relates to piping the attachment rather, not a whole message.
Re: Correct syntax of send hook
Hi Guy, On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > > The usage of "-c ':r !cat /tmp/file'" does solve the issue of > editing two files, but, I cannot seem to get the send-hook correct, > and depending on how/where I place my quotes, I get different > errors. - > Which is troubling, because I do have other send-hooks defined > and working well. In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the whole "set editor=..." bit. Hope this helps, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.
disabling shell-escape
Is there a way to completely disable the shell-escape feature?
Are there arguments to the pipe command
Hello to all, I am constructing a mutt macro which shall pipe the text/plain message to a script that processes the markdown formatting and inserts the HTML output into the HTML template. This so far works well. However, it would be beneficial to get an option to pipe with the arguments such as $from_email or $from_name, $subject and $to_name I am thinking of something like: |process_email.pl %from %to %subject If anyone has an idea how to implement that on the pipe, let me know. Thank you, Raul
