Re: priority header

1999-12-29 Thread David T-G
Thomas, et al -- ...and then Thomas Roessler said... % On 1999-12-27 07:55:12 -0500, David T-G wrote: % % > based on a header (Priority: or Importance:) and then make that % > entry in the index be reverse color (since I just use mono)? I % % I was actually thinking about flagging messages as

Re: my_hdr From: && fcc-hook

1999-12-29 Thread David T-G
Alexander -- ...and then Alexander Sclearuc said... % Hello guys, % % The problem: % % I've corrected mutt configuration adding next string in it (to % represent my current configuration): % my_hdr From: Alexander Sclearuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What was it doing before? % % Now all my fcc-sa

It's a dumb plug-in that caused the crashing

1999-12-29 Thread bruno
On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 08:49:25AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Probably, it would be the best idea if someone took the time to > write up a report of the problem, and sent it to Microsoft. I've been sending a load of test messages to get to the bottom of this. The sys-admin who's had the trou

Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Jon Walthour
Reply-To: Hi, I've been having some annoying things happen in Mutt that I was wondering if someone with more experience could help me solve. First, I am in several mailing lists (this one included) where, when I press 's' to save the message, Mutt offers to save it in a file named whatever th

Re: Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Jeff Abrahamson
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 08:55:38AM -0500, Jon Walthour wrote: > First, I am in several mailing lists (this one included) where, when > I press 's' to save the message, Mutt offers to save it in a file > named whatever the sender's email address is rather than based on > the mailing list name (loca

Re: priority header

1999-12-29 Thread David Shaw
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 06:14:28AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % What you are proposing can be done with the usual index coloring. > > Good. Off to the manual (unless anyone else out there wants to just > show me how to do it :-) > > Actually, I think I need that help. I've tried playing around

Re: Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Jeremy Blosser
Jon Walthour [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > First, I am in several mailing lists (this one included) where, when I > press 's' to save the message, Mutt offers to save it in a file named > whatever the sender's email address is rather than based on the mailing > list name (located in the To: header)

Re: Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Jon Walthour
Thank you, everyone, for your input. I think I've gotten answers to all my questions. -- Thanks, Jon Walthour, OCP Oracle Database Administrator Client Server Associates, Incorporated (513) 241-5949 (office) (888) 649-9488 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Steve Kennedy
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 10:49:10AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: > save-hook ~l +%B # if message was sent to a known list, default save box is > # OK I have one too. I have about 1300 messages sent from Nobody and I want to bounce them all to another address (or better pipe them

Re: Mailing List and Attachment Problems

1999-12-29 Thread Jeremy Blosser
Steve Kennedy [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > OK I have one too. I have about 1300 messages sent from Nobody and > I want to bounce them all to another address (or better pipe them > all individually to a program), then delete them. T ~f nobody ;b (to bounce) ;| (to pipe) ;d -- Jeremy Blosser |

delete-hook

1999-12-29 Thread Jonathan Pennington
Is there a way to change the delete action to move the message to a folder instead of deleting it? I'd like to retain *all* email corrospondence this way. I know it can be done with a save-hook, but I want it to be the default delete action. (it would be nice is default sent the message to /dev/nu

Re: delete-hook

1999-12-29 Thread Jeremy Blosser
Jonathan Pennington [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Is there a way to change the delete action to move the message to a > folder instead of deleting it? I'd like to retain *all* email > corrospondence this way. I know it can be done with a save-hook, but I > want it to be the default delete action. (

mutt article in LinuxWorld

1999-12-29 Thread Jeremy Blosser
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-12/lw-12-mutt.html It's about a week old. Overall very positive. About the only bad thing he says is that Mutt doesn't have IMAP folder browsing... I'll mail him to mention this isn't true of the unstable branch. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROT

[ANNOUNCE] mutt_ldap_query-2.3

1999-12-29 Thread Marc de Courville
Dear all, I have just released a new version of my mutt_ldap_query perl script (version 2.3). Now it incorporates a builtin table of common servers and associated search bases allowing simpler commands by implementing a nickname key based lookup (changes inspired from a patch sent by Adrian Likin

[ANNOUNCE] mutt_ldap_query-3.0

1999-12-29 Thread Marc de Courville
Dear all, this is the second release of the day which contains some enhancements and some bug-fixes of my mutt_ldap_query perl script. mutt_ldap_query performs ldap queries using either ldapsearch command or the perl-ldap module and it outputs the required formatted data for feeding mutt when us

RE: Compile error

1999-12-29 Thread Bram Shirani
Thanks for the help - it does crash at the same spot, I don't notice it in compiling other projects, and I've tried it a couple times. I'll read up on the information you guys sent and check it out. Thanks again. PS - note the shortened quote :) -- Bram Shirani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "UNIX *is* u

Re: priority header

1999-12-29 Thread David T-G
David -- ...and then David Shaw said... % On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 06:14:28AM -0500, David T-G wrote: % > % > header while I was reading the message. What I *want* is for the index % > line of a flagged message to be reversed so that it stands out in the % > display. % % Try % mono index

Re: priority header

1999-12-29 Thread David T-G
Hi, all -- ...and then David @ BigFoot said... % % Um, if it's not too much to ask, do you know if I can reverse based on an % arbitrary header, like "Importance: High" or "Priority: Urgent" rather % than having to have procmail insert the X-Status: header for me too? I guess I can answer my ow

Re: reply-hooks [was: mutt/gpg crashes Outlook 2000?]

1999-12-29 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 27 Dec 1999: > The idea has been brought up before. Okay. Does that mean that it's a feature people would want and it's not just been implemented yet, or that the idea's just been shot down? [send-hooks applied after reply-hooks] > With that order

Re: Key binding problems

1999-12-29 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999: > I'm using aterm as well. All keys working well. > These are the relevant configs that I use: I tried using the configuration suggestions given, but they didn't seem to help. :-( Mikko (still a Home/End-less aterm user) -- // Mikko