On Wed 17 at 01:21 PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> This highlighting is determined by the file
> $VIMRUNTIME/syntax/muttrc.vim. Perhaps yours is old and contains some
> bugs or does support the version of mutt you're using.
Excellent point. I grabbed the latest muttrc.vim file (dated 2012-02-0
On 2013-04-17, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On 2013-04-17, rj wrote:
> > On Wed 17 at 02:00 PM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > > I use vim and it knows I'm editing a file of type muttrc, which is nice.
> >
> > Likewise for myself on both counts.
> >
> > > My guess is that your editor is applying the
> I wouldn't bother searching any further -- mailbox formats are generally
> (and IMO wrongly) regarded as outside the scope of RFCs and suchlike.
> ...
> I certainly agree that it should be documented, however.
qmail sites usually document quite particular. Their mbox(5) page speaks
of formats: m
On 2013-04-17, rj wrote:
> On Wed 17 at 02:00 PM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> > I use vim and it knows I'm editing a file of type muttrc, which is nice.
>
> Likewise for myself on both counts.
>
> > My guess is that your editor is applying the wrong syntax hiliting rules.
>
> This very well c
On Wed 17 at 02:00 PM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> I use vim and it knows I'm editing a file of type muttrc, which is nice.
Likewise for myself on both counts.
> My guess is that your editor is applying the wrong syntax hiliting rules.
This very well could be the case, though I don't quite get
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 01:39:43PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> >> mutt didn't need that header to operate well in the original folder.
> >> In general, can't think of any reason to modify any Maildir message on
> >> disk
> >> and view this as tainting the msgs with unecessary and un-asked-for mods.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 01:38:55PM -0400, rj wrote:
> On Wed 17 at 01:27 PM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> > Do you mean that when you open .muttrc in your editor, the two
> > characters "%>" are highlighted?
>
> Exactly. And this is not an artifact of any highlighting I may have
> accidentall
>> mutt didn't need that header to operate well in the original folder.
>> In general, can't think of any reason to modify any Maildir message on disk
>> and view this as tainting the msgs with unecessary and un-asked-for mods.
>
> well, they don't really hurt, but may even help mutt and other too
On Wed 17 at 01:27 PM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Do you mean that when you open .muttrc in your editor, the two
> characters "%>" are highlighted?
Exactly. And this is not an artifact of any highlighting I may have
accidentally applied.
I've seen it several times before -- the highlighting
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 02:18:29AM -0400, rj wrote:
> The "%>" in the pager_format setting below is highlighted in red in my
> .muttrc.
>
> I have a feeling mutt is trying to tell me something about my use of
> that escape sequence there by this, but I don't know what.
>
> # Format of the pager
Hi grarpamp,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:34:49PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> mutt didn't need that header to operate well in the original folder.
> In general, can't think of any reason to modify any Maildir message on disk
> and view this as tainting the msgs with unecessary and un-asked-for mods.
11 matches
Mail list logo
