Re: Saving attachments (Again)

[Jean-Rene David]

* John Niendorf [2014.07.01 15:23]:
> Specifically, if I get an email with 20 images attached, what is the
> easiest way to save them all to a specific folder.
> 
> I know I can tag them all, but what is the next step?

Type ';' or whatever you have the tag-prefix
command bound to, then 's'. Mutt will prompt you
for a file name, give it a directory name. When
mutt asks for confirmation, type 'a' to save all
attachments in the directory.

HTH,

-- 
JR

Re: Correct syntax of send hook

[Jean-Rene David]

* 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

[Jean-Rene David]

* 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: Reading a thread

[Jean-Rene David]

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.04.29 09:31]:
>  My question is: Is it possible to step to the
>  next mail of that thread without "q" to quit
>  the current mail, "" to go to the next
>  mail and "  Is it further possible, that mutt will not
>  step further, if the last mail of a thread
>  has been read that way?

Sure, don't type the command. ;-)

To know whether or not the current message is the
last in the thread, set the pager_index_lines
variable to whatever suits you.

HTH,

-- 
JR

Re: search mailbox throughly

[Jean-Rene David]

* Shaochun Wang [2007.03.27 07:15]:
> I want to search one of my mailbox throughly,
> not just the header of mail,

~b EXPR | messages which contain EXPR in the message body |
~B EXPR | messages which contain EXPR in the whole message|

See Table 4.1. Pattern modifiers for a lot more.

The external program "grepmail" may also be of use.

-- 
JR

Re: forwarding messages with attachments

[Jean-Rene David]

* Derek Martin [2007.03.14 19:30]:
> I consider this to be utterly and completely
> broken, and I'm considering reporting it as a
> bug, but I'm waiting to see what other people
> think.  

>From my limited understanding, when a message is
mime-encoded, the *whole body* is a set of
attachments, including what you refer to as the
body, which is the part you composed before
sending the message.

So when you set mime_forward=yes, it's
*consistent* to put the body of the original
message as an attachment. I agree it's annoying,
because we, as users, distinguish between the body
and the attachments. But, and again if I'm wrong
somebody correct me, mime doesn't make that
distinction.

So the behavior you (and I) want is actually a
special case where you want the *first* attachment
to be quoted but not the others, regardless of
their mime type.

Note that the behavior is perfectly ok when the
attachments are not of type text/*. I guess what
we need is a bit of control into the "heuristics"
mutt uses to determine whether or not to quote
the message when forwarding/replying.

Note also that mutt is not *always* consistent.
For example when in the attach menu, if there are
multiple text attachments and I press "e" to edit
the message, I get only the part I composed. Not
the text attachments.

I agree with Gary this is not a bug, but would be
a nice feature.

-- 
JR

Re: Thread Un-breaking

[Jean-Rene David]

* Ryan Curtin [2007.03.05 18:15]:
> I've looked online but unfortunately I have not
> been able to figure out how to "un-break" a
> thread (i.e. revert what '#') does.  Can anyone
> tell me?  I'd appreciate it.

"link-threads" is bound to '&' by default.

-- 
JR

Re: Mutt Newbie;Configuring Mutt

[Jean-Rene David]

* Michael Pobega [2007.02.26 08:00]:
> I think it is set by default, but when I go back
> and edit what I typed everything gets out of
> alignment. Vim is a good text editor but it
> doesn't really like when I add in/remove words. 

Not sure what you mean, but if your paragraphs are
separated by empty lines, just put the cursor in
one of those "out of alignment" paragraphs and
type "gqip".

:h gq
:h ip

-- 
JR

Re: Mutt Newbie;Configuring Mutt

[Jean-Rene David]

* Chris Bannister [2007.02.26 08:00]:
> You should set your editor to linewrap at 72 characters. 
> [...]
> I can't seem to find where its set though.

:set tw=72

:h textwidth
:h wrap

-- 
JR