Alas! Ricardo SIGNES spake thus:
> I do something like this, and use sed.
>
> Try something like this (untested):
>
> MLIST=`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/\(foo\|bar\|baz)@qux\.com*/\1/i'`
> ~/mail/$MLIST
This is what I currently have set up, and it catches most lists:
:0:
* ^List-Id:.*
Alas! Rob Reid spake thus:
> > This is really weird. I'm generating these with a perl script, and if I
> > tell it to print "^$mbox", I'll get something like "^inbox" printed, but
> > mutt will interpret that as "^Inbox" (a tab and then "nbox"). But if I
> > tell it to print "^ ^H$mbox", it'll pri
I have set edit_headers. Why does mutt not add a Sender: header line
when I add that to the headers in the editor? It works with other
headers, but Sender: is actively removed. Likewise with my_hdr. It shows
up the first time in the editor, but then mutt takes the liberty to
delete this as soon as
On 04-26-2002 at 10:31 EDT, Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I could tell you - but then I'd have to kill you."
> fix the From and MID first.
Interesting how Sven is always on both sides, but never in the middle:
whether he is an extremely helpful, wonderful individual or a total moron.
* On 2002.04.26, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Sven Guckes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * VB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-26 04:19]:
> > Do my headers look ok?
>
> No. Missing real name in From: -
> and missing domain in Message-Id.
But as Sven forgets, neither of these is actually wrong or
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:57:30AM -0400, Rob Reid wrote:
> At 12:19 AM EDT on April 26 VB sent off:
> > Do my headers look ok? When I send messages to myself (I'm real lonely) it says
>"X-Authentication-Warning" and gives out some info that you don't need to know. I
>looked at google and it s
At 12:19 AM EDT on April 26 VB sent off:
> Do my headers look ok? When I send messages to myself (I'm real lonely) it says
>"X-Authentication-Warning" and gives out some info that you don't need to know. I
>looked at google and it suggested adding "needmailhelo" under the privacy flag
>sectio
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:12:35AM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> cd maildir
> find . -exec grep -l "stuff" {} \;
That works, but find -exec is inefficient, because it runs grep once
per file, while grep is perfectly capable of looking at multiple
files per run. It's better to use -print and xargs
At 10:38 PM EDT on April 25 Rob 'Feztaa' Park sent off:
> Alas! Rob 'Feztaa' Park spake thus:
> > folder-hook =foobar "macro index foobar"
> >
> > If I change "foobar" to "^foobar", it doesn't work, but that line as it is
> > works fine. Is there a different search command that does have regexes
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:48:45PM -0600, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> I know I could do something like this (untested):
>
> :0:
> * ^TO_\/.*@qux\.com
> ~/mail/$MATCH
>
> But, the problem being that the foldernames would be the actual address
> of the list ('[EMAIL PROTECTED]' instead of 'foo', wh
begin David Collantes quotation:
>
> Is there a way to perform a search on all mailboxes, without entering any in
> specific? I use maildirs and Mutt 1.5.0i from the CVS. Thanks!
sure:
man find
Pay special attention to the "-exec" flag.
Something like:
cd maildir
find . -exec grep -l "stuf
* VB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-26 04:19]:
> Do my headers look ok?
No. Missing real name in From: -
and missing domain in Message-Id.
> When I send messages to myself (I'm real lonely)
> it says "X-Authentication-Warning" and gives out
> some info that you don't need to know.
> I looked at g
* David Collantes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-26 02:23]:
> Is there a way to perform a search on all
> mailboxes, without entering any in specific?
No. FAQ!
PS: *Two* Reply-To lines? is this
a new business strategy? Sheesh!
Sven
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 07:50:09 -0500, David T-G wrote:
> Now *that* one is a new one on me. I don't recall having run across that
> before. Very interesting, and certainly a compelling reason to not build
> mutt_dotlock. Why didn't you say so in the first place? ;-)
Because I noticed the pro
Vincent --
...and then Vincent Lefevre said...
%
% On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 13:12:31 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
% > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:49:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote
% > > As a normal user, you shouldn't be able to remove a privileged
% > > mutt_dotlock, since it will be owned by root; t
Stephan --
...and then Stephan Seitz said...
%
% Hi!
Hello!
%
% On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:49:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote
% > As a normal user, you shouldn't be able to remove a privileged
% > mutt_dotlock, since it will be owned by root; the only way for that
% > to happen is if it was worl
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 13:12:31 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:49:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote
> > As a normal user, you shouldn't be able to remove a privileged
> > mutt_dotlock, since it will be owned by root; the only way for that
> > to happen is if it was world-writa
Hi,
* David T-G [04/26/02 12:52:58 CEST] wrote:
> ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % * David T-G [04/25/02 19:14:01 CEST] wrote:
> % > So which is easier, to remove a file or to tell configure to not put it
> % > there in the first place? And which is easier, to do nothing or to
> % > modify th
Hi David,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Mit 24 Apr 2002 07:47:36 GMT]:
> Gregor --
[ ... ]
> % set sendmail="tee >(lbdb-fetchaddr -a)|/usr/lib/sendmail -oem -oi"
> % in muttrc. But when I send mail, there is an exec error 127.
> %
> % On the command line
> % cat email | tee >(lbdb-fetchaddr -
Hi!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:49:14AM -0500, David T-G wrote
> As a normal user, you shouldn't be able to remove a privileged
> mutt_dotlock, since it will be owned by root; the only way for that
> to happen is if it was world-writable anyway. If you can remove it,
Or the directory is writable
John, et al --
...and then John Iverson said...
%
% * On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Im Eunjea wrote:
%
...
% > macro index "\Cx" \
% > "~N*" \
% > "Mark all boring new msgs"
%
% This malfunctions if there are no N(ew) messages by incorrectly
% setting N on the highlighted message. Note that you theref
Rocco, et al --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
%
% * David T-G [04/25/02 19:14:01 CEST] wrote:
% > ...and then Vincent Lefevre said...
% > % too. :( I have to remove mutt_dotlock from my bin directory each
% > % time I want to install a new version of Mutt.
%
% > So which is easier, t
Vincent, et al --
...and then Vincent Lefevre said...
%
% On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 23:12:58 +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
% > It doesn't really matter, I think. The dotlock program is the
% > last which is to be installed. if chgrp fails, who cares since
% > (at that point) everything else is sucessf
On Thu 25-Apr-2002 at 09:56:50 -0400, David Collantes wrote:
>
> Is there a way to perform a search on all mailboxes, without entering
> any in specific? I use maildirs and Mutt 1.5.0i from the CVS.
mboxgrep apparently searches multiple Maildir folders. I've never used
it, so I don't know how i
24 matches
Mail list logo
