Re: Setting envelope-sender according to alternates

1999-12-10 Thread Thomas Roessler
On 1999-12-10 03:44:03 +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: Sounds like something that could be done with a wrapper script, invoked instead of the real sendmail command to first parse the email, set the environment variable, and then call sendmail. It would be fairly easy to bloat up

Re: Setting envelope-sender according to alternates

1999-12-10 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 1999: mutt could just pass "-faddress" to sendmail. Note that at least sendmail and the sendmail emulation of postfix can handle this. I was trying to see if qmail's sendmail emulation script does, I think so, but wasn't able to confirm

Re: Setting envelope-sender according to alternates

1999-12-10 Thread Henrique M. Holschuh
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Mikko Hänninen wrote: Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 1999: mutt could just pass "-faddress" to sendmail. Note that at least sendmail and the sendmail emulation of postfix can handle this. I second that. And the -f address option is

Re: Multiple POP accounts and personalities...

1999-12-10 Thread Chris Green
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 04:17:25PM -0500, Brendan Cully wrote: In short, as David says, the bulk of fetchmail's code is dealing with weird, quirky POP servers reliably. I for one don't want to try to recreate fetchmail's years of experience in mutt. On the other hand, the IMAP code is almost

Re: Setting envelope-sender according to alternates

1999-12-10 Thread Mike Bell
I was trying to see if qmail's sendmail emulation script does, I think so, but wasn't able to confirm it in documentation. (Yes, I know, should be easy enough to test.) Yes, not only does qmail's sendmail emulation work just fine, you can actually set your sendmail variable to qmail-inject

Re: Multiple POP accounts and personalities...

1999-12-10 Thread Eugene Lee
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 10:47:36PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: : :I'd have it try both. If TOP fails, I'd have it give up in disgust, :because you might as well download everything in that case, which :means you might as well use fetchmail. If UIDL fails, I'd have it :apply work-arounds,

Re: problem with save-hook

1999-12-10 Thread Robert Chien
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 12:49:52PM +1030, Andrew O'Callaghan wrote: Hi. I have tried to create a save-hook for a mailing list that I am on, but it doesn't seem to work. I may be confusing the way save-hook works though, so please correct me if I am way off. I created a hook in my .muttrc

Re: problem with save-hook

1999-12-10 Thread David DeSimone
Andrew O'Callaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: save-hook linuxsa +linux I assumed this was going to save any mail that contained "linux" in the To: field, into my ~/mail/linux mailbox. Since you know you want to match "linuxsa" in the To: field, go ahead and use that as your pattern:

Re: problem with save-hook

1999-12-10 Thread David DeSimone
Robert Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try this instead: save-hook '~C linuxsa*' +linux Is the '*' there so that you can match 'linuxs', 'linuxsa', 'linuxsaa'? That's what it will do for you. -- David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |

Re: problem with save-hook

1999-12-10 Thread Robert Chien
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:07:18PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote: Robert Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try this instead: save-hook '~C linuxsa*' +linux Is the '*' there so that you can match 'linuxs', 'linuxsa', 'linuxsaa'? That's what it will do for you. Hmm... you're right.

Re: Multiple POP accounts and personalities...

1999-12-10 Thread Eugene Lee
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 03:42:09PM -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: : :For the record, I find "there are too many buggy POP3 servers to support :effectively inside Mutt" a far more persuasive argument than "POP3 sucks :and I'd rather see that it remains outside of Mutt." If Mutt were to start supporting

Re: New list patterns

1999-12-10 Thread Mikko Hänninen
David Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 1999: Here is a patch against 1.1 that: 1) Makes ~l mean "mailing list" again. 2) Adds a new ~u pattern that means "subscribed list". Good idea. I didn't know this was "broken". :-) The only thing about this I don't like is that

Re: New list patterns

1999-12-10 Thread David Shaw
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 02:52:39AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: David Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 1999: Here is a patch against 1.1 that: 1) Makes ~l mean "mailing list" again. 2) Adds a new ~u pattern that means "subscribed list". Good idea. I didn't know

mutt, folders procmail

1999-12-10 Thread Craig McVean
Hi to all muttets? I have mutt working quit well Except my .procmailrc is not placing all my mailing lists into theire own mailboxes mutt-users is working nicely. not my other recipes ( they are the same format as for mutt-users. I'm under the impression that if i place a / after the name of the

Re: mutt, folders procmail

1999-12-10 Thread Lalo Martins
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 05:21:07PM +1100, Craig McVean wrote: Hi to all muttets? I have mutt working quit well Except my .procmailrc is not placing all my mailing lists into theire own mailboxes mutt-users is working nicely. not my other recipes ( they are the same format as for mutt-users.