Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000:
> ## Nuke duplicate messages
> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
>
> ## Create backup cache of 100 most recent messages
> :0 c
> backup
> :0 ic
> | cd $PMDIR && rm -f dummy `ls -t msg.* | sed -e 1,100d`
That won't w
Well, after two frustrating days I got it all working! Colors work
now that I'm using ncurses (5.0 for those interested), and the
readonly inbox problem is also gone due to this small problem with
the RPM specfile:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
That's what was messing up the permissions on mutt_
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:00:28PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >## Create backup cache of 100 most recent messages
> >:0 c
> >backup
> > :0 ic
> > | cd $PMDIR && rm -f dummy `ls -t msg.* | sed -e 1,100d`
> >
> >But it doesn't seem to be working properly (the backup part). I've
> >go
Vincent Danen proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>## Create backup cache of 100 most recent messages
>:0 c
>backup
> :0 ic
> | cd $PMDIR && rm -f dummy `ls -t msg.* | sed -e 1,100d`
>
>But it doesn't seem to be working properly (the backup part). I've
>got something like over 1000 messages in ther
Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this but I'm sure I got
this little code snippet from a mutt-related website...
I've got this in my .procmailrc file:
## Nuke duplicate messages
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
## Create backup cache of 100 most recent messages
:0 c
ba
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 07:43:23PM -0700, AG wrote:
> > Anyone know why there's such a discrepancy? I think the RPM might be
> > stripping the binaries but I don't know if that would make such a big
> > difference... Doing a mutt -v on both the RPM and manual binaries
> > produces the same outp
Binu Abraham proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>Please help me, how to send email using mutt ( only attachments )with from
>comand prompt only.
>i.e I don't want to open the composer because I,m executing a shell script.
Why do you want to do this using _mutt_? There's a prog called fastmail
(se
Hi again, folks --
...and then Thomas Roessler said...
% Mutt-1.2.2 is on its way to the FTP archive under
I pulled down the tarball, extracted, patched, configured, and made, but
was stopped because of the keymap_defs.h problem. Perhaps that should be
fixed before 1.2.3 comes out...
:-D
--
Binu --
...and then Binu Abraham said...
% Please help me, how to send email using mutt ( only attachments )with from
% comand prompt only.
% i.e I don't want to open the composer because I,m executing a shell script.
Just direct your input from /dev/null like any other message with no
body.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Vincent Danen wrote:
> Anyone know why there's such a discrepancy? I think the RPM might be
> stripping the binaries but I don't know if that would make such a big
> difference... Doing a mutt -v on both the RPM and manual binaries
> produces the same output:
The spec-hel
> Mike Markowski:
> Notice that I now must put *two* slashes after "~mm". With only a
> single slash, I get this:
how in the world did you find out? i would never have had the idea to try
to put two slashes in there! now tell us: what made you do this? not the
marsians again
clemens
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 04:03:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We could add a search mail function that does:
>
> grepmail > /tmp/mutt-11241
>
> and then loads /tmp/mutt-11241 or whatever as the current box.
Mutt already has that feature.
l ~b
will limit the messages displayed
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 02:11:05PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> > sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> > with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> > different outputs
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 09:45:22PM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 1262377 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt*
> > -rwxr-sr-x1 root mail36607 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock*
> > -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 6668 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/muttb
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 03:35:42PM -0400, Rob Reid wrote:
> > Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> > sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> > with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> > different outputs. The
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 03:27:43PM -0400, Bob Bell wrote:
> > Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> > sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> > with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> > different outputs. The
Please help me, how to send email using mutt ( only attachments )with from
comand prompt only.
i.e I don't want to open the composer because I,m executing a shell script.
Please reply [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get Your Private, F
At 1:34 PM EDT on June 21 Vincent Danen sent off:
> Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> different outputs. The first is from th
I just had a suggestion for what might be a nice feature for Mutt.
The grepmail program is nice since it greps for e-mails containing something
and spits them out in standard mail format. We could add a search mail
function that does:
grepmail > /tmp/mutt-11241
and then loads /tmp/mutt-11241 o
On 2000-06-21 14:11:05 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 1262377 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt*
> > -rwxr-sr-x1 root mail36607 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock*
> > -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 6668 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/muttbug*
> > -rw
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> I've had *lots* and *lots* of problems with Mutt and colours. All
> investigations and lots of time spent debugging them showed that the
> problems weren't Mutt's fault. I finally fixed my terminfo and settled
> on ncurses 5.0, since it distored my
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 11:34:45AM -0600, Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> differe
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 11:34:45AM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 1262377 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt*
> -rwxr-sr-x1 root mail36607 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock*
> -rwxr-xr-x1 root root 6668 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/muttbug*
>
>
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 11:34:45AM -0600, Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
> sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
> with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
> differe
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 11:57:03AM -0400, Rob Reid wrote:
-> At 11:02 PM EDT on June 20 Charles Curley sent off:
-> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:24:18PM -0700, Dale Morris wrote:
-> > > I've started using emacs as editor for mutt. I'm specified it in the muttrc
-> > > file and also have setup a sc
Ok... I've still got some problems making my RPM for mutt and I'm not
sure what's causing it. I built mutt manually and then I built it
with the exact same options for the RPM but I get two totally
different outputs. The first is from the manual install and the
second is from the RPM install
-r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:48:29PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > Is that a "Mutt" in ascii-art? :-) Where's it from..?
> >
> Yes, it's that. It is from me, and freshly done. In memory of the moment
> where I found in the manual that it was possib
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:45:32PM -0400, Mike Markowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:19:52PM +0200, Thomas Roessler
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> muttered:
> > On 2000-06-21 10:49:57 -0400, Mike Markowski wrote:
> >
> > > Notice that I now must put *two* slashes after "~mm". With only a
> > > si
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:20:07PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > This morning I received a message which had 130 recipients (myself
> > included) all in the To: header. I wanted to send my reply to all 130
> > recipients, so I used the 'g' key to do a group-reply. However, after
> > composing
At 11:02 PM EDT on June 20 Charles Curley sent off:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:24:18PM -0700, Dale Morris wrote:
> > I've started using emacs as editor for mutt. I'm specified it in the muttrc
> > file and also have setup a script file(e-lisp) in /home/me/.mutt called
> > post.el which is a pack
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 05:19:52PM +0200, Thomas Roessler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> muttered:
> On 2000-06-21 10:49:57 -0400, Mike Markowski wrote:
>
> > Notice that I now must put *two* slashes after "~mm". With only a
> > single slash, I get this:
>
> [...]
>
> > It seems to swallow the first sla
On 2000-06-21 10:49:57 -0400, Mike Markowski wrote:
> Notice that I now must put *two* slashes after "~mm". With only a
> single slash, I get this:
[...]
> It seems to swallow the first slash.
Please try the attached patch.
Index: muttlib.c
=
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:48:29PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 19 Jun
>2000:
> > " ^^ Gauthier Vandemoortele "
> > | (_/°°-ç[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> > | | \_`-"
After upgrading from 0.95.1 to 1.2, I'm seeing a lot of
"Lock count exceeded, remove lock for ?" errors. This happens
most consistantly with my postponed messages folder, but I've been able
to reproduce it with other folders as well.
What typically happens is: while at the index for my syste
Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000:
> This morning I received a message which had 130 recipients (myself
> included) all in the To: header. I wanted to send my reply to all 130
> recipients, so I used the 'g' key to do a group-reply. However, after
> composing my message,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:13:03AM -0400, Daniel Monjar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> muttered:
> Just grabbed 1.2.2i and did the install. Everything appeared to work
> well but mutt seg faults on invocation.
I'm running on Solaris 8 without imap/ssl and it works without
any noticable problems, except for
On 2000-06-21 10:13:03 -0400, Daniel Monjar wrote:
> Just grabbed 1.2.2i and did the install. Everything
> appeared to work well but mutt seg faults on
> invocation.
Have you recently upgraded your libc?
Jeremy Blosser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Martin Schröder [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Btw: Is http://www.mutt.org/news.html maintained anymore? The
> > lastest entry is for 1.0pre4 :-}
>
> That's because everything from then on has been listed on the index page.
> news.html only contains stu
Just grabbed 1.2.2i and did the install. Everything appeared to work
well but mutt seg faults on invocation. I've been tracking the
releases fairly closely and this is the first time I've had a problem.
Going back to 1.2i and doing a make install gets me back to working.
System is a base Red Ha
Martin Schröder [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Btw: Is http://www.mutt.org/news.html maintained anymore? The
> lastest entry is for 1.0pre4 :-}
That's because everything from then on has been listed on the index page.
news.html only contains stuff that's been archived from the index page,
which is
On 2000-06-21 13:37:45 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> *sigh* I hoped to have that one fixed. At least, it
> appeared to be from my own tests.
Please try the attached patch. The error I made was
incredibly stupid.
Index: mbox.c
==
I'm using mutt on Redhat linux 6.2:
Mutt 1.2i (2000-05-09)
Copyright (C) 1996-2000 Michael R. Elkins and others.
Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'.
Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details
Stan Ryckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000:
> This is sort of a guess as well, since I'm going from memory, but
> what I think was asked.
My understanding was that he wanted to specify the "display name" for
several mail addresses, in the mail folder view. This is what
$reverse_a
Brett Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 20 Jun 2000:
> Hmm, to the extent that MH format is like Maildir, my experience
> is contrary to your claim that saving changes is faster in a
> one-message-per-file format. I found that closing mutt took
> several times longer with MH tha
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000:
> > > Um, when did 1.2.1 come out? I've had my eyes peeled for the
> > > announcement for quite a while now...
> That was one or two days ago. It seems the announcement
> didn't make it to mutt-announce.
I definitely remember appro
At 10:35 AM 6/21/00 +0100, Telsa Gwynne wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:00:47AM -0400 or thereabouts, David T-G wrote:
>> Daniel --
>>
>> I, for one, had trouble following your aka proposal.
>
>I did, also. I know this sounds silly, but was Daniel actually looking
>for the 'alias' setting?
On 21/06/00 22:29 +1000, Dennis Robertson typed:
>> Send yourself mail to create a mailbox :)
>> ~$ echo 'hello world'|mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Did that.
>> See that mutt is looking for the mailboxes ... add the mailboxes line
>> mailboxes $MAIL =mailbox1 =mailbox2 ...
>Did that.
Did it work?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-06-21 13:37:45 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > *sigh* I hoped to have that one fixed. At least, it
> > appeared to be from my own tests.
>
> Please try the attached patch. The error I made was
> incredibly stupid.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-06-21 21:13:10 +1000, CaT wrote:
>
> > Bug still there.
>
> *sigh* I hoped to have that one fixed. At least, it
> appeared to be from my own tests.
>
> Just a question: Did mutt leave any temporary files behind
> which
On 2000-06-21 21:13:10 +1000, CaT wrote:
> Bug still there.
*sigh* I hoped to have that one fixed. At least, it
appeared to be from my own tests.
Just a question: Did mutt leave any temporary files behind
which could be used to reconstruct the mail folder?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 11:57:40AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2000-06-21 00:51:05 -0400, David T-G wrote:
> > ...and then Thomas Roessler said...
> > % Mutt-1.2.2 is on its way to the FTP archive under
> >
> > Woo hoo! Thanks!
> >
> > Um, when did 1.2.1 come out? I've had my eyes peele
On 2000-06-21 11:57:40 +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> > Um, when did 1.2.1 come out? I've had my eyes peeled for the
> > announcement for quite a while now...
> Me2.
That was one or two days ago. It seems the announcement
didn't make it to mutt-announce.
On 2000-06-21 00:51:05 -0400, David T-G wrote:
> ...and then Thomas Roessler said...
> % Mutt-1.2.2 is on its way to the FTP archive under
>
> Woo hoo! Thanks!
>
> Um, when did 1.2.1 come out? I've had my eyes peeled for the
> announcement for quite a while now...
Me2.
Btw: Is http://www.mut
Could you please persuade your mutt to produce a
References: Header?
Thanks in advance
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen
Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10
PGP signature
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:00:47AM -0400 or thereabouts, David T-G wrote:
> Daniel --
>
> I, for one, had trouble following your aka proposal.
I did, also. I know this sounds silly, but was Daniel actually looking
for the 'alias' setting?
I am so used to the term 'alias' because I've always
55 matches
Mail list logo
