Re: Header processing weirdness in nmh-1.0.4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Harkless" writes:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> >> I looked for this in the FAQ, and couldn't find it. I posted to comp.mail.m
> >h,
> >> but so far no responses that helped.
> >>
> >> Summary: I no longer get Cc: lines.
> >
> >Are you failing to use repl's -group option?
>
> Ah-hah! Correct you are... this leaves open the question of when, between
> MH (which did what I expected) and NMH (which does this), it changed. But
> I'm fine with this, the "-group" option does fix it. Thanks!
Early versions of nmh worked like MH, and then at some point (look at the
ChangeLog if you're really interested when) Richard added this -group thing,
not to universal acclaim. Over the long haul, people not realizing they had
to start using -group has probably been the biggest nmh FAQ.
As I recall, the current CVS version of nmh makes it so it's no longer
necessary to use -group (but still allows it to be specified).
> That still doesn't explain (to me, anyway) why:
>
> %(lit)%(formataddr{to})\
> %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr Orig-To: )\n%>\
>
> in response to your message, doesn't give me an "Orig-To:" header, but it
> works around the big problem. :)
Been too long since I delved into that % formatting language to easily debug
your problem. It doesn't help if you change it to X-Orig-To, does it?
---
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
Re: Header processing weirdness in nmh-1.0.4
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Harkless writes:
>> That still doesn't explain (to me, anyway) why:
>> %(lit)%(formataddr{to})\
>> %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr Orig-To: )\n%>\
>> in response to your message, doesn't give me an "Orig-To:" header, but it
>> works around the big problem. :)
>Been too long since I delved into that % formatting language to easily debug
>your problem. It doesn't help if you change it to X-Orig-To, does it?
No, but if I use {from}, it works.
-s
Re: Header processing weirdness in nmh-1.0.4
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Harkless" writes:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
>> I looked for this in the FAQ, and couldn't find it. I posted to comp.mail.m
>h,
>> but so far no responses that helped.
>>
>> Summary: I no longer get Cc: lines.
>
>Are you failing to use repl's -group option?
Ah-hah! Correct you are... this leaves open the question of when, between
MH (which did what I expected) and NMH (which does this), it changed. But
I'm fine with this, the "-group" option does fix it. Thanks!
That still doesn't explain (to me, anyway) why:
%(lit)%(formataddr{to})\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr Orig-To: )\n%>\
in response to your message, doesn't give me an "Orig-To:" header, but it
works around the big problem. :)
-s
Re: Header processing weirdness in nmh-1.0.4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes: > I looked for this in the FAQ, and couldn't find it. I posted to comp.mail.mh, > but so far no responses that helped. > > Summary: I no longer get Cc: lines. Are you failing to use repl's -group option? --- Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please [EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
Header processing weirdness in nmh-1.0.4
I looked for this in the FAQ, and couldn't find it. I posted to comp.mail.mh,
but so far no responses that helped.
Summary: I no longer get Cc: lines.
More detailed:
It appears that it is impossible for me to get a Cc line in a reply. My
replcomps are:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
%(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%?{from}%?{sender}%?{return-path}%>)\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n%>\
%(lit)%(formataddr{to})%(formataddr{cc})%(formataddr(me))\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr cc: )\n%>\
%<{fcc}Fcc: %{fcc}\n%>\
%<{subject}Subject: Re: %{subject}\n%>\
%<{date}In-reply-to: Your message of "\
%<(nodate{date})%{date}%|%(pretty{date})%>."%<{message-id}
%{message-id}%>\n%>\
and otherwise work. It gets cooler. Let's say I were to do something like
%(lit)%(formataddr{to})\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr Orig-To: )\n%>\
in just after the reply-to.
Nothing happens. So, "formataddr{to}" is coming out null.
It gets weirder still. If I use these replcomps:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
%(lit)%(formataddr{from})\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr Orig-To: )\n%>\
%(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%?{from}%?{sender}%?{return-path}%>)\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n%>\
%(lit)%(formataddr{to})%(formataddr{cc})%(formataddr(me))\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr cc: )\n%>\
%<{fcc}Fcc: %{fcc}\n%>\
%<{subject}Subject: Re: %{subject}\n%>\
%<{date}In-reply-to: Your message of "\
%<(nodate{date})%{date}%|%(pretty{date})%>."%<{message-id}
%{message-id}%>\n%>\
I now get an Orig-To: header... but *NOT* a To: header! Somehow, the To:
header is getting eaten when I print my bogus Orig-To header.
I have tried about five different sets of replcomps that people have
recommended, and in no cases, ever, can I get it to print anything based
on {to} from the message I'm replying to.
-s
