Re: folder hooks and condition not for the first message [SOLVED]
> > the command is to delete from the selected message to > > bottom, not like without it, to the top message. > > What happens if you drop and set $resolve? > Exactly this works great! Thank you very much! Have a nice Sunday. Raphael.
Re: folder hooks and condition not for the first message
> > the command is to delete from the selected message to > > bottom, not like without it, to the top message. > > What happens if you drop and set $resolve? > Hi Alain, I'll read it at the weekend how this work, at the moment, I don't understand what $resolve is. But, i'll try it... thank you for your tip.
Re: folder hooks and condition not for the first message
Hello Raphael, On Friday, March 21, 2008 at 16:48:11 +0100, Raphael Brunner wrote: > the command is to delete from the selected message to > bottom, not like without it, to the top message. What happens if you drop and set $resolve? Bye!Alain. -- set honor_followup_to=yes in muttrc is the default value, and makes your list replies go where the original author wanted them to go: Only to the list, or with a private copy.
Re: folder-hooks applying too often
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 04:59:45PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > =- Matthew Daubenspeck wrote on Sat 14.Apr'07 at 10:55:49 -0400 -= > > > > * Matthew Daubenspeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-14 09:48 -0400]: > > > > folder-hook =INBOX 'macro index d > > > > "=INBOX.Trash"' > > > > > > This hook is applied to all folders that contain =INBOX. > > > > > > > when in INBOX and INBOX.Work. However, it is using the setup in ALL > > > > folders. Any suggestions? > > > > > > Add $ at the end of the mailboxname. > > > > I must have the syntax wrong, as I tried that and it makes no > > difference: > > Please re-check how folder-hooks work, maybe > http://WIKI.mutt.org/?DebugConfig can help you. > "catch-all" default is what you miss. Ugh. My mistake. That fixed it and made it work perfectly. Thanks for the link. -- Matthew Daubenspeck http://oddprocess.org Gentoo Linux x86_64 Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 165 01:07:02 up 72 days, 14:54, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Re: folder-hooks
Hi, * David T-G [05/31/02 15:23:14 CEST] wrote: > Have you tried > [^b][^a][^c][^k][^1]* > to match "zero or more not-one"s? See answer. I've already asked a few people how to best solve problems like your and mine. No way. I was advised to write a script which creates which takes all possible values and a blacklist pattern and returns a whitelist. Regular expressions are really great -- but not if someone wanted to work with blacklists. * Dan Boger [05/31/02 16:28:34 CEST] wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:39:20AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > > % just occured to me that this won't match "back2" either, since it starts > > % with a "b"... > > Yeah, that's another problem that occurred to me after posting. I had > > the same sort of problem with $alternates; I'd really like to be able to > > say something like > > set alternates = "[^(laura*|madi|^quin*)]@justpickone.*" Hey, didn't your wife read the mail for the cat? ;-) > what we need is like the perl lookbehind: >(? A zero-width negative lookbehind assertion. For > example /(? "foo" that isn't following "bar". Works only > for fixed-width lookbehind. That's worth a try. > another by the way - having a trailing .* is a nop, just eats cpu cycles > (in a patterm match)... If I had as much [insert_favorite_good_here] as I have CPU cycles waiting to be wasted... Cheers, Rocco
Re: folder-hooks
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:39:20AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % just occured to me that this won't match "back2" either, since it starts > % with a "b"... > > Yeah, that's another problem that occurred to me after posting. I had > the same sort of problem with $alternates; I'd really like to be able to > say something like > > set alternates = "[^(laura*|madi|^quin*)]@justpickone.*" what we need is like the perl lookbehind: (? msg28430/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: folder-hooks
Dan -- ...and then Dan Boger said... % % On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:23:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % > Have you tried % > % > [^b][^a][^c][^k][^1]* % > % > to match "zero or more not-one"s? % % can't use that to negate a "1" in the 5th position... "test1" would % match because it would match "0 '1's in the 5th position, followed by a % '1'"... if you get my meaning... Hmmm... So something like test12345 ==> (t)(e)(s)(t)()12345 then? Yeah, I guess not. % % just occured to me that this won't match "back2" either, since it starts % with a "b"... Yeah, that's another problem that occurred to me after posting. I had the same sort of problem with $alternates; I'd really like to be able to say something like set alternates = "[^(laura*|madi|^quin*)]@justpickone.*" to match everything at a JPO site *except* other family members (yes, I know that this leaves out webmaster and so on, which in fact *is* me but can be thought of as not being me; anyway, it's *supposed* to be a simple example). Despite some (much appreciated!) attempts to come up with a working pattern, we never figured out something that would work. % % -- % Dan Boger % Linux MVP % brainbench.com % HAND :-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! msg28429/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: folder-hooks
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:23:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > Have you tried > > [^b][^a][^c][^k][^1]* > > to match "zero or more not-one"s? can't use that to negate a "1" in the 5th position... "test1" would match because it would match "0 '1's in the 5th position, followed by a '1'"... if you get my meaning... just occured to me that this won't match "back2" either, since it starts with a "b"... -- Dan Boger Linux MVP brainbench.com msg28428/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: folder-hooks
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * Dan Boger [05/31/02 14:34:37 CEST] wrote: % > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:27:09PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: ... % % > > folder-hook =IN\.[^b][^a][^c][^k][^1] ... ... % > > guess that for IN.test it checks if the first 5 characters % > > after IN. are not one of b,a,c,k,1 - but 'test' is only 4 ... % > order) "b" "a" "c" "k" "1" - and you're right - since "test" is only 4 ... % while 'not 1' is true for just nothing - but it's not a % character. [^1] thus is true if a) there's a character and % b) that character is not 1. If you don't understand the way Have you tried [^b][^a][^c][^k][^1]* to match "zero or more not-one"s? HTH & HAND :-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! msg28427/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: folder-hooks
Hi, * Dan Boger [05/31/02 14:34:37 CEST] wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:27:09PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: > > I have a problem with a folder-hook. Say, I've got three > > folders IN.back1, IN.back2 and IN.test. If I want to take > > some action for all folders except IN.back1 I use: > > folder-hook =IN\.[^b][^a][^c][^k][^1] ... > > The problem is that mutt doesn't apply it to IN.test. I > > guess that for IN.test it checks if the first 5 characters > > after IN. are not one of b,a,c,k,1 - but 'test' is only 4 > > long. I guess that's the reason why it fails in this special > > case while it works for all other folder names longer or > > equal to 5 characters after IN.. > sounds to me that it's doing exactly what you told it to... match any > folder that begins with an "IN.", followed by 5 chars that are not (in > order) "b" "a" "c" "k" "1" - and you're right - since "test" is only 4 > characters, it doesn't match the "not 1" section. Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. Actually, I was somehow missing the fact that it checks for an existing character while 'not 1' is true for just nothing - but it's not a character. [^1] thus is true if a) there's a character and b) that character is not 1. If you don't understand the way I thought... doesn't matter: You're right. > I think you might be better off making a general folder hook (that will > match back1 as well), then adding another folder hook (after? before?) > that will deal with the special case. It don't need even more lines in my setup. I think it should be not too difficult to write a pattern doing what I want - now that I'm aware of the small difference. Thanks anyways... Cheers, Rocco
Re: folder-hooks
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:27:09PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: > I have a problem with a folder-hook. Say, I've got three > folders IN.back1, IN.back2 and IN.test. If I want to take > some action for all folders except IN.back1 I use: > > folder-hook =IN\.[^b][^a][^c][^k][^1] ... > > The problem is that mutt doesn't apply it to IN.test. I > guess that for IN.test it checks if the first 5 characters > after IN. are not one of b,a,c,k,1 - but 'test' is only 4 > long. I guess that's the reason why it fails in this special > case while it works for all other folder names longer or > equal to 5 characters after IN.. sounds to me that it's doing exactly what you told it to... match any folder that begins with an "IN.", followed by 5 chars that are not (in order) "b" "a" "c" "k" "1" - and you're right - since "test" is only 4 characters, it doesn't match the "not 1" section. I think you might be better off making a general folder hook (that will match back1 as well), then adding another folder hook (after? before?) that will deal with the special case. HTH! -- Dan Boger Linux MVP brainbench.com msg28424/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Folder hooks are helping me make an ass of myself - need some more creative ideas
Louis LeBlanc wrote: > Well, When I reply back - not with 'L' but with 'r', yep, you guessed > it, I have inappropriately brought an off list discussion back on > list, often leaving out some important context. Very annoying. > People get quite flustered about it too. Understandibly so. perhaps you should not set the 'Reply-to' or 'To' headers and just the 'From' header? that's what i do. eg if i hit 'r' instead of 'L', my folder hook still sets the 'from' address to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', (which is intentional - so that follow-ups directed directly to me are at least categorized in the correct folder) hitting 'L' should automatically set the correct 'to' field so there's no need to set this. i suppose one could argue as to whether or not setting the 'Reply-To' header to the list is a good idea; i'd just nicely ask people to reply to the list if they accidentally reply to me instead. hitting 'L' should also set 'Mail-Followup-To' correctly, so assuming other peoples' clients follow this (what other mail clients besides mutt pay attention to this?) that should help make sure the reply is directed appropriately. this scheme messes me up sometimes too when i forward a message from a list and forget to edit the header. such is life. w -- GPG Public Key: http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/
Re: folder-hooks dont work
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:56:27PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > folder-hook {imaphost}myfolder 'my_hdr Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
>
> No damned use this way. You set the envelope (and hence the return path)
> using the set sendmail option in older mutts and the set envelope_from in
> newer mutts.
>
Problem solved. thanks!
Christoph
Re: folder-hooks dont work
Christoph proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> To have different Return-Paths set in my headers, in different
> folders I set up the following:
> folder-hook {imaphost}myfolder 'my_hdr Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
No damned use this way. You set the envelope (and hence the return path)
using the set sendmail option in older mutts and the set envelope_from in
newer mutts.
> For now two days I try to track the problem down but I am still clueless.
> I am using mutt 1.2.5i on OpenBSD 2.7 (i386). Help needed.
You might get a clue from the fact that the return path is set by the mail
server - and may be altered by any mailserver in the path (such as a list
server, say)
-s
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis
mallet @ cluestick.org + Lumber Cartel of India, tinlcI
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On 2000-11-30 09:34:56 +, Conor Daly wrote:
> > mailboxes ! {server}INBOX.mutt-users
> What's the exclamation mark for.
It's a short-hand for your inbox.
--
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 09:06:29PM -0500 or thereabouts, Tabor J. Wells wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:01:29PM +,
> Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is thought to have said:
>
> > Ah, got it!
> >
> > use
> >
> > folder-hook INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
> >
> > instead so long as the folder appears in your .muttrc.
>
> Doesn't work for me with 1.3.11i.
>
> From my .muttrc:
>
> mailboxes ! {server}INBOX.mutt-users
^
What's the exclamation mark for.
>
> folder-hook INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
>
> and it still defaults to date-received
>
--
Conor Daly
Met Eireann, Glasnevin Hill, Dublin 9, Ireland
Ph +353 1 8064217 Fax +353 1 8064275
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:01:29PM +,
Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is thought to have said:
> Ah, got it!
>
> use
>
> folder-hook INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
>
> instead so long as the folder appears in your .muttrc.
Doesn't work for me with 1.3.11i.
>From my .muttrc:
mailboxes ! {server}INBOX.mutt-users
folder-hook INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
and it still defaults to date-received
Tabor
--
Tabor J. Wells[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator
Art Technology Group http://www.atg.com
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:31:28PM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Bob Bell thought:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:06:04PM -0500, Tabor J. Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would have expected that:
> >
> > folder-hook {hostname}INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
> >
> > would work, but that apparantly is not the case. Any suggestions on what I'm
> > missing?
>
> Here's a few folder-hooks that I have set:
> folder-hook . set pager_index_lines=10
> folder-hook "!$" set pager_index_lines=4
> folder-hook "!$" 'uncolor index "~C bobbell"'
> folder-hook "!.mutt" 'color index red default "~f Roessler"'
>
Could you post what your imap folders look like?
Ie. How do you translate "!.mutt" to
"{server}Mail/whatever/the/mailbox/name/is"
TIA
Conor Daly
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 07:53:33PM + or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Conor Daly thought:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:31:28PM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Bob Bell thought:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:06:04PM -0500, Tabor J. Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would have expected that:
> > >
> > > folder-hook {hostname}INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
> > >
> > > would work, but that apparantly is not the case. Any suggestions on what I'm
> > > missing?
> >
> > Here's a few folder-hooks that I have set:
> > folder-hook . set pager_index_lines=10
> > folder-hook "!$" set pager_index_lines=4
> > folder-hook "!$" 'uncolor index "~C bobbell"'
> > folder-hook "!.mutt" 'color index red default "~f Roessler"'
> >
> Could you post what your imap folders look like?
> Ie. How do you translate "!.mutt" to
> "{server}Mail/whatever/the/mailbox/name/is"
>
> TIA
>
> Conor Daly
Ah, got it!
use
folder-hook INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
instead so long as the folder appears in your .muttrc.
Conor Daly
Re: folder-hooks with IMAP mailboxes?
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:06:04PM -0500, Tabor J. Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have expected that:
>
> folder-hook {hostname}INBOX.mutt-users set sort=thread
>
> would work, but that apparantly is not the case. Any suggestions on what I'm
> missing?
Here's a few folder-hooks that I have set:
folder-hook . set pager_index_lines=10
folder-hook "!$" set pager_index_lines=4
folder-hook "!$" 'uncolor index "~C bobbell"'
folder-hook "!.mutt" 'color index red default "~f Roessler"'
etc. etc.
--
Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
"There are two major products to have come out of Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX"
-- Author Unknown
Re: Folder Hooks
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:27:03PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen muttered: -> Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 16 May 2000: -> > I am testing by going into the appropriate folder, then starting a new -> > email with "m". If I provide the appropriate address for the send hook, it -> > works. If I provide a different address, the defaults are invoked. This is -> > true even when I comment out my send hooks. -> -> I still think it might be because the send-hooks are overriding the -> settings in the folder-hook(s). The send-hook stuff is executed every -> time you beging a new email, so if you have a default send-hook (very -> likely) that gets executed every time. If it sets any of the same -> things that you set with a folder-hook when entering that folder, those -> settings will be overridden. This turns out to be correct. I carefully commented out only the default send hooks, and then use an email address that would not trigger any of the custom ones. I got my folder hook to work. Either I previously observed my tests incorrectly (quite possible after many interations), or something else prevented the folder hooks from working. Previously I did comment out all of my send hooks, not just the default ones, and restarted mutt. This may be a problem. I would like to use both send-hooks and folder hooks. I will explore further. -> -> You say that this happens even when you comment out the send-hooks, but -> did you *restart* Mutt after that? Even if you comment the lines out -> from your .muttrc and do ":source .muttrc" then send-hooks will remain, -> you need to restart Mutt to do a full reset. -> (Or, I suppose you could use the clear-hooks command to clear all -> send-hooks, but restart is a sure way...) I have been restarting mutt. -> -> -> Regards, -> Mikko -> -- -> // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ -> // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / -> // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / -> "The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony #9." Not the Concerto for Line Printer and Orchestra, by Franz List? -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Re: Folder Hooks
Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 17 May 2000: > This may be a problem. I would like to use both send-hooks and folder > hooks. I will explore further. Mutt 1.2 has a new feature command "clear-hooks". It should be possible to clear all your send-hooks when entering a folder and set them selectively, and also to have a different default send-hook for each folder. It may get a bit complex but theoretically it should be doable. :-) (Picture this: a defalt folder-hook that sets a default send-hook, and some other send-hooks, and then some other folder-hooks that set some other kind of default send-hook, as well as other send-hooks... May require some care to get that working right. ) This would be easier if there was a folder-matching operator that could be used in send-hooks, but there isn't, so you have to make do with what you've got. Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Entropy isn't what it used to be.
Re: Folder Hooks
Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 16 May 2000: > I am testing by going into the appropriate folder, then starting a new > email with "m". If I provide the appropriate address for the send hook, it > works. If I provide a different address, the defaults are invoked. This is > true even when I comment out my send hooks. I still think it might be because the send-hooks are overriding the settings in the folder-hook(s). The send-hook stuff is executed every time you beging a new email, so if you have a default send-hook (very likely) that gets executed every time. If it sets any of the same things that you set with a folder-hook when entering that folder, those settings will be overridden. You say that this happens even when you comment out the send-hooks, but did you *restart* Mutt after that? Even if you comment the lines out from your .muttrc and do ":source .muttrc" then send-hooks will remain, you need to restart Mutt to do a full reset. (Or, I suppose you could use the clear-hooks command to clear all send-hooks, but restart is a sure way...) Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / "The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony #9."
Re: Folder Hooks
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:39:38AM -0600, Charles Curley wrote: > [Problem with folder-hook] > > Thanks, Frank, but no joy on any of these. I even commented out my > "folder-hook . ..." defaults, which are above the ondes I showed above. > Perhaps you post your muttrc and we can look. I can prove that the folder-hook mechanism is working in 1.2i ... Frank
Re: Folder Hooks
Charles Curley proclaimed on mutt-users that: >-> * Do you have some other folder-hooks in your muttrc? IMHO *all* >-> matching ones are executed. E.g. a folder-hook . unmy_hdr reply-to >-> later in the muttrc will abandon your Reply-to-address. One (perhaps stupid) question - have you _defined_ mailboxes first, before applying folder hooks? Try something like ... subscribe linux subscribe spam-l subscribe mutt # Set options for the various mailing lists I'm on # The mailboxes that I should check mailboxes $MAIL =spam-l =linux =mutt =juno-post save-hook '~f spam-l' =spam-l save-hook '~f linux-india' =linux save-hook '~f mutt-' =mutt # Sort our mailboxes by date set sort_browser=date folder-hook spam-l 'set attribution="Talking to spam-l, thus spake %n: "' folder-hook linux 'set attribution="%n spewed into the LI bitstream: "' folder-hook mutt 'set attribution="%n proclaimed to mutt-users that: "' and then add your folder-hook . 'blah blah' As you can see from the attribution below, it works for me :) hth -s -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr at staff.juno.com Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. -- Robert Orben
Re: Folder Hooks
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:58:38AM +0200, Frank Derichsweiler muttered: -> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:57:00PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote: -> > OK: I have some send hooks working. When I try to do analogous things with -> > folder hooks, those fail. For example: -> > -> > folder-hook =wyo_lp 'set signature=~/.signatures/conan_the_anarchist.txt' -> > folder-hook =wyo_lp 'my_hdr Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' -> > -> > does not seem to work, where -> > -> > I am testing by going into the appropriate folder, then starting a new -> > email with "m". -> -> Some ideas: -> * Do you have some other folder-hooks in your muttrc? IMHO *all* -> matching ones are executed. E.g. a folder-hook . unmy_hdr reply-to -> later in the muttrc will abandon your Reply-to-address. -> *Is the = directory properly set at that time? (muttrc is read from -> top to bottom...) -> * Try removing the '' ticks in the 2nd one. -> -> HTH -> Frank Thanks, Frank, but no joy on any of these. I even commented out my "folder-hook . ..." defaults, which are above the ondes I showed above. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Re: Folder Hooks
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:57:00PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote: > OK: I have some send hooks working. When I try to do analogous things with > folder hooks, those fail. For example: > > folder-hook =wyo_lp 'set signature=~/.signatures/conan_the_anarchist.txt' > folder-hook =wyo_lp 'my_hdr Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > does not seem to work, where > > I am testing by going into the appropriate folder, then starting a new > email with "m". Some ideas: * Do you have some other folder-hooks in your muttrc? IMHO *all* matching ones are executed. E.g. a folder-hook . unmy_hdr reply-to later in the muttrc will abandon your Reply-to-address. *Is the = directory properly set at that time? (muttrc is read from top to bottom...) * Try removing the '' ticks in the 2nd one. HTH Frank
Re: folder hooks and sendmail
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000, 13:55, Frank Derichsweiler wrote: (sorry about that Subject header :) > > folder-hook "!" set sendmail="/usr/sbin/sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > I use folder-hook FOLDERNAME 'set sendmail="SENDMAILCOMMAND "' > ^ ^ > and it works fine ! ...and it works fine here as well!! Thanks a million! Raymond -- Raymond A. Meijer True Bit BV
Re: folder hooks and sendmailendmail
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 11:03:11AM +0100, Raymond A. Meijer wrote: > I can't seem to get mutt to use different sendmail settings for different > folders: > > folder-hook "!" set sendmail="/usr/sbin/sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ---end quoted text--- I use folder-hook FOLDERNAME 'set sendmail="SENDMAILCOMMAND "' ^ ^ and it works fine ! HTH Frank
Re: folder-hooks, (un)ignore, and From_
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 01:06:13PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > Greg Matheson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2000: > > I'm having a problem with folder hooks in which I have (un)ignore > > commands for From_ headers. > I remember reading somewhere that you can't (re-)ignore a header which > you have unignored. That was the problem, but upgrading to 1.0.1, that problem has gone away. -- Greg MathesonThink globally Chinmin College, Taiwan Act locally [EMAIL PROTECTED] Think one thing, do another
Re: folder-hooks, (un)ignore, and From_
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 15:01:56 +0100, Byrial Jensen wrote: > > Except "unignore *" that just removes "*" from the ignore list > if it is there, and else does nothing -- it doesn't remove all > tokens from the ignore list as the manual says. Ups, in fact it does. And "ignore *" removes all tokens from the unignore list. Sorry for the confusion. -- Byrial
Re: folder-hooks, (un)ignore, and From_
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 17:50:03 +0800, Greg Matheson wrote: > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us It might help to upgrade to Mutt 1.0.1. There have been some fixes to ignore/unignore which make them work better. However don't trust the manual about this topic. Header weeding functions this way: Mutt stores internally two lists: the ignore list and the unignore list. A header is ignored if and only if it matches the ignore list and doesn't match the unignore list. So if you have these commands: ignore x- unignore x-mailer you will see x-mailer headers because it matches the unignore list. The manual says otherwise but is wrong. The ignore command adds its arguments to the ignore list and removes them from the unignore list if they are there. The unignore command adds its arguments to the unignore list and removes them from the ignore list if they are there. Except "unignore *" that just removes "*" from the ignore list if it is there, and else does nothing -- it doesn't remove all tokens from the ignore list as the manual says. -- Byrial
Re: folder-hooks, (un)ignore, and From_
Greg Matheson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2000: > I'm having a problem with folder hooks in which I have (un)ignore > commands for From_ headers. After unignoring the From_ header in > one mailbox, I can't ignore it in others. I remember reading somewhere that you can't (re-)ignore a header which you have unignored. I'm not positive if that's so, but if yes, then this is probably the source of your problem. Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
