Hi,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:51:38PM +0200, the.real.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I am somehow clueless, I searched the web a lot regarding this topic but
didn't find a clear statement. Therefore I ask on this list.
I'm using mailing lists a lot, no problem so far. I'm also a big
* Hu Tao hu...@cn.fujitsu.com [Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:04:07PM +0800]
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:51:38PM +0200, the.real.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I am somehow clueless, I searched the web a lot regarding this topic but
didn't find a clear statement. Therefore I ask
* Am Do, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:51:38 +0200 , schrieb the.real.ka...@gmail.com:
Hello list,
I am somehow clueless, I searched the web a lot regarding this topic but
didn't find a clear statement. Therefore I ask on this list.
I'm using mailing lists a lot, no problem so far. I'm also a big GPG
Hello list,
I am somehow clueless, I searched the web a lot regarding this topic but
didn't find a clear statement. Therefore I ask on this list.
I'm using mailing lists a lot, no problem so far. I'm also a big GPG
user. Some mailing lists I'm on are using encryption too, in order to
not have
Hello friends.
I have lists and subscribe configured to my lists, but when reply to one
of them, the From: header is the actual one of various I have.
I can change From: with F1Fn but I'm looking for a hook or macro
to use the right one for each list.
Any advice will be nice.
Thanks
for each list.
send-hook '~t \\mutt-us...@mutt\.org\\' 'my_hdr From: your address here'
--
.
is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the recipients. Often
this is an interesting field for social research :) but that left
aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm about to send
an information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through
email to
each user. Otherwise that user doesn't know that the email went to a
list of undisclosed recipients.
I sometimes receive such emails that are marked as undisclosed
recipients in the Cc:.
Could that possibly achieved by mutt forging the headers (in a benign
way of course). Sending
:) but that left
aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm about to send
an information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to hide
the 100 users
. Often
this is an interesting field for social research :) but that left
aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm about to send
an information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make
avoid this in a case now when I'm
about to send an
information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done loop
I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to
hide the 100 users and only show up the one
research :)
but that left aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm
about to send an
information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done loop
I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to
hide
, but how do I tell to
hide the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus a note that
the email went to a group of undisclosed users?
Put the alias in the Bcc: line and yourself in the To: line.
Thanks. Neat idea. I saved the mail with the long recipients list to
a file and it contains
idea. I saved the mail with the long recipients list to
a file and it contains
a bunch of umlauts in the form of
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?=p...@juergen.net
Any idea how I can convert this to some other encoding
Usedecode-save (bound toescs by default) instead ofsave
so I can put
users?
Put the alias in the Bcc: line and yourself in the To: line.
Thanks. Neat idea. I saved the mail with the long recipients list to
a file and it contains
a bunch of umlauts in the form of
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?=p...@juergen.net
Any idea how I can convert this to some other encoding
the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus a note that
the email went to a group of undisclosed users?
Put the alias in the Bcc: line and yourself in the To: line.
Thanks. Neat idea. I saved the mail with the long recipients list to
a file and it contains
a bunch
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 16:14:05 +0200
Ah, I see. Well, the users file was retrieved by saving that persons
email - good to know about that decode-save now -
and hand editing it. I finally ran some vi commands over it and
manually converted all the =FC and
research :)
but that left aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm
about to send an
information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done loop
I could make an alias of these users, but how
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 11:08]:
Make sure you have
set write_bcc=no
in your .muttrc, or the Bcc header will be included in the message.
That *only* applies to your locally saved copy, not the outgoing message
that others see.
see the man page.
--
Patrick
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 02:58:56PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 11:08]:
Make sure you have
set write_bcc=no
in your .muttrc, or the Bcc header will be included in the message.
That *only* applies to your locally saved copy, not
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
Default: yes
Controls whether mutt writes out the “Bcc:” header
when preparing messages to
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Hmmm... Seems like you're wrong after all (Mutt 1.5.20hg
(2009-08-27)). Mutt may well write out the Bcc line on the message
that is sent out.
The bcc addressed to me, I have rec'd and it does *not* contain a bcc
header or any of the
On Jul 27, 2010 at 03:29 PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
Hmmm... Seems like you're wrong after all (Mutt 1.5.20hg
(2009-08-27)). Mutt may well write out the Bcc line on the message
that is sent out.
It's probably dependent on the SMTP agent, no? I did a test earlier today
using putmail as my
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
Default: yes
Controls whether mutt writes out
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 16:51]:
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
and I am bcc'ing this post to you, the op and me.
Maybe sendmail strips it? I'm using ssmtp.
I have: postfix-2.7.1-50.1.x86_64
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana,
this in a case now when I'm about to send
an information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to hide
the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:57:39PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to hide
the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus a note that
the email went to a
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
I have:
:set ?write_bcc write_bcc is set
and I am bcc'ing this post to you, the op and me.
Maybe sendmail strips it? I'm using ssmtp.
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:43]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and ssmtp may not as well (but it probably should). Exim
claims to have good reason for leaving them,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:43]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and ssmtp may not as well (but it
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:56]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Then the *problem* is with exim rather than the *expected* actions of
mutt's config?
It's an arguable point. And it's a long-known problem.
Hi,
After pressing 'v' to view list of attachments, select the attachment
then hit 's', backspac over the filename then hit TAB to get a
directory list, it is possible to navigate the directory list but I
cannot see how to make a directory selection.
'q' does exit the list but it does
* {mutt-us...@nospam.pz.podzone.net {mutt-us...@nospam.pz.podzone.net
[07-23-10 04:36]:
After pressing 'v' to view list of attachments, select the attachment
then hit 's', backspac over the filename then hit TAB to get a
directory list, it is possible to navigate the directory list but I
. But how do you exit the directory list?
Hitting enter goes into that directory - this is how I navigate from
~/ down until the desired directory is reached.
Hitting q exits the directory list but the selection is not
maintained.
I should mention this is with Mutt 1.5.9i (2005-03-13)
Perhaps
On 04-12 14:20, Michael Elkins wrote:
Attached is a patch which implement an auto-subscribe feature. When
you load a mailbox, Mutt will parse the List-Post header field and add
it to the 'subscribe' list automatically, unless it matches something
on the 'unlists' or 'unsubscribe' list
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:47:21AM +0200, ilf wrote:
On 04-11 20:22, Michael Elkins wrote:
The reason for the distinction between lists/subscribe is that just
because you received an email that was addressed to a list doesn't
mean that you are subscribed to said list.
But if there's
On 04-11 20:32, Michael Elkins wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 01:38:19AM +0200, ilf wrote:
I would like a workaround to use Regex in 'lists' and 'subscribe', but
that feels dirty. Why doesn't Mutt allow 'lists'/'subscribe' to lists
based on the List-Id: header?
The List-ID header
based on the List-Id: header?
The List-ID header is not necessarily a valid email address. All
that the RFC requires is that it be a unique value for each list. As
such, it's not terribly useful for figuring out where to reply.
I never proposed using List-Id to figure out where to reply, List
Attached is a patch which implement an auto-subscribe feature. When you load
a mailbox, Mutt will parse the List-Post header field and add it to the
'subscribe' list automatically, unless it matches something on the 'unlists'
or 'unsubscribe' list.
me
diff -r 2cd62f40d840 hcache.c
said,
I'm clueless on it. :( [1]
The reason for the distinction between lists/subscribe is that just because
you received an email that was addressed to a list doesn't mean that you are
subscribed to said list. For the most part you can just ignore the lists
command and use subscribe.
me
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 01:38:19AM +0200, ilf wrote:
I would like a workaround to use Regex in 'lists' and 'subscribe', but
that feels dirty. Why doesn't Mutt allow 'lists'/'subscribe' to lists
based on the List-Id: header?
The List-ID header is not necessarily a valid email address. All
will, though, help you filter mail into different
folders. I'm a procmail newbie myself, and such is offtopic for this
list, so I won't go into that farther here.
[1] Input from someone more clueful would be appreciated, as this is
beyond my understanding at this point.
--
_ Brian Ryans 8B2A 54C4
Quoting ilf on 2010-04-08 16:09:46:
I'm confused by Mutts handling of mailing lists.
First, I do not understand the difference of known lists (lists) and
subscribed lists (subscribe). If Mutt handles mail from a known list,
I'm probably subscribed, no?
Mutt's meaning of known and subscribed
Lists sais, Mutt can do things
with mailing lists once Mutt knows what [my] mailing lists are.
It can:
1. show mailing list in index with
- listname with $index_format including %L
- message status flag 'L' with $index_format including %Z
2. use list-reply
3. use $followup_to
Section 3.9
Quoting ilf on 2010-04-09 12:18:08:
Thanks for your hints. But I am still confused :)
Now I'm confused too, see below.
Manual section 4.8 Handling Mailing Lists sais, Mutt can do things
with mailing lists once Mutt knows what [my] mailing lists are.
It can:
1. show mailing list in index
I'm confused by Mutts handling of mailing lists.
First, I do not understand the difference of known lists (lists) and
subscribed lists (subscribe). If Mutt handles mail from a known list,
I'm probably subscribed, no?
Secondly, I find having to manually maintain a list of subscriptions in
my
On 23.03.10,08:45, Michael Elkins wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Tuesday, March 23, 2010 a las 11:13:00PM +0800, Jostein Berntsen
escribió:
When I receive a mail from a mailing list, is it an easy way im Mutt to
see which of my
* Jostein Berntsen jber...@broadpark.no [03-24-10 15:33]:
Thanks. It seems like this header can also give the right result:
fgrep 'Original-recipient' | less
This is rare. I ran it on a folder with an accumulation of mostly non
email list traffic and had one hit out of 1395 messages
Hi,
When I receive a mail from a mailing list, is it an easy way im Mutt to
see which of my To: addresses the list is using?
--
Jostein Berntsen jber...@broadpark.no
El día Tuesday, March 23, 2010 a las 11:13:00PM +0800, Jostein Berntsen
escribió:
Hi,
When I receive a mail from a mailing list, is it an easy way im Mutt to
see which of my To: addresses the list is using?
just pipe the mail through:
| fgrep 'for '
matthias
--
Matthias Apitz
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Tuesday, March 23, 2010 a las 11:13:00PM +0800, Jostein Berntsen
escribió:
When I receive a mail from a mailing list, is it an easy way im Mutt to
see which of my To: addresses the list is using?
just pipe the mail
of this
approach.
I'm not so sure that model works for the list header thing though. One
could certainly write a utility to parse the headers and display them.
However, the final action that one takes with the selected output is not to
pass it off to a program of your choice based on mailcap, but to send
, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the body of the
message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you can send to some list
addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
=- Tim Gray wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 11:32:59 -0500 -=
Though, there are other reasons why you might want to edit the
body of the message. If I'm not mistaken, there are commands you
can send to some list addresses. Not that anyone uses those...
I do, but the interfaces vary, so ... I just
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:50:02PM -0600, David Young wrote:
Isn't this a problem of packaging, not a problem of architecture
or philosophy?
It should be evident from the large amount of traffic on this list
that it is not. If you've been here long enough, you see the same
threads over
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 13:13:54 -0600 -=
If a useful feature should be excluded (when there is someone
willing to write the code), there should be a strong technical
reason for such an exclusion; not simply duh, Unix philosophy!!
It's resource efficiency: I don't want to
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
You, however, expect all the solutions to be put into the core
C-code
Not *all*... just the ones that make sense. The Unix Philosophy
doesn't preclude maintainers from using their brains to decide what
features do or don't make sense.
'Evening, Derek
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
Why do you link _against_ C libraries? Surely you
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:28:06PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The performance characteristics are impacted more by mailbox size and
by growth of the C libraries linked against, than by any combination
of proposed features.
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 5.Feb'10 at 14:39:24 -0600 -=
The Unix Philosophy doesn't preclude maintainers from using their
brains to decide what features do or don't make sense. Dogma does.
Can't you imagine that there is actually some brains behind that
dogma?
I'm all against mindless
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 29.Jan'10 at 17:45:28 -0600 -=
There has been a tendency in some quarters to blindly and rigidly
advocate that following the Unix Philosophy is the One True Way,
which has often hindered progress.
What kind of progress do you mean?
Maybe your goals or ideal world
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
should be in the code, not on the user end.
The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necessarily to be in
the user end, it can be put in meta-code (wrappers), which
When composing a new message to a list, I typically use the list-reply
command, then manually delete the In-Reply-To: header line and change
the subject. It would be really handy to automate this somehow with a
macro that:
* deletes the In-Reply-To: header line
* prompts the user with a blank
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. Mutt has very few technical weaknesses, but its user
interface is from 3 decades ago. I, and I suspect a lot of people,
would love to see a modern Mutt.
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 05:44:08PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
As I said, I believe that if you need to have complexity, it
should be in the code, not on the user end.
The glue to accomplish complex goals needs not necessarily to
Charlie Kester wrote:
On Thu 04 Feb 2010 at 15:44:08 PST Derek Martin wrote:
It's not that simple. Outlook sucks for a lot of reasons, many of
them technical. Mutt has very few technical weaknesses, but its user
interface is from 3 decades ago. I, and I suspect a lot of people,
would love
* Morris, Patrick patrick.mor...@hp.com [02-04-10 23:08]:
(Disclaimer: I'm on a borrowed laptop at the moment, so don't read
the headers on this one.)
you don't have a stick with putty on it? For shame :^)
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:09:41PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
I would love to see RFC2369 handling built in to mutt, but have not had
time to explore this in code. I'm certain there are others here who
would cite the Unix Philosophy or whatever, and assert that an external
program could do
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Another way to look at it, if you think that the above idea is
stretching the Unix Philosophy beyond what was intended (which it very
arguably is), is that the Unix philosoply is about 4 decades old, and
software (and users) have
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:55:32PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is this: the Unix
philosophy is to do one thing, and do it well. In the case of my mail
program, the one thing is to handle my mail. It should be capable
to do all of the essential
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:40:18PM -0600, David Young wrote:
It sounds to me like you may be confusing two ideas. One idea is a way
of assembling an application from small programs that perform discrete
tasks in a script or pipeline. The other idea is a user's experience
that an application
Many mailing lists tuck links and addresses useful for list management in
the headers, like List-Unsubscribe and List-Help. I looked around in the
manual and in Google, but I couldn't find much. I'm assuming this means
mutt commands based on the info in these headers don't exist. Am I
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:22:08PM -0500, Tim Gray wrote:
Many mailing lists tuck links and addresses useful for list
management in the headers, like List-Unsubscribe and List-Help. I
looked around in the manual and in Google, but I couldn't find much.
I'm assuming this means mutt commands
On Tue 26, Jan'10 at 5:23 PM +, Steve Kennedy wrote:
If you look at the headers you'll find direct instructions for these
lists?
Yeah. It would be nice if you didn't have to weed through 3 screens of
headers to find the right link. Like a 'list details' command that
extracted
On Tuesday, 26 January 2010, 12:30:17 -0500,
Tim Gray lists+m...@protozoic.com wrote :
Yeah. It would be nice if you didn't have to weed through 3 screens
of headers to find the right link.
Not exactly what you're looking for, but unignore might help.
* On 26 Jan 2010, Tim Gray wrote:
Yeah. It would be nice if you didn't have to weed through 3 screens
of headers to find the right link. Like a 'list details' command
that extracted the appropriate links/emails from the headers and let
you open the right links or send a mail to the right
On Tue 26, Jan'10 at 12:09 PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
Such a program might work like urlview: parse out List-* headers from
a piped-in message and display a menu of options that these headers
present (and then generate and submit mail messages as appropriate).
I guess that would work
=- Wilkinson, Alex wrote on Fri 8.Jan'10 at 12:38:55 +0800 -=
However, threading never ever has seemed to work. I am finally
wanting to investigate why and if possible how to fix it.
{...}
Here is my folder-hook to implement threading:
{...}
Can anyone suggest why the aforementioned
Hi all,
I am subscribed to email alerts from:
From: Sysinternals Forums fo...@forum.sysinternals.com
However, threading never ever has seemed to work. I am finally
wanting to investigate why and if possible how to fix it.
Here is an example of a series of emails that should have been
(unset
strict_threads). It's possible that that mailing list is stripping out
the usual email headers that establish threads (such as In-Reply-To
and References).
~Kyle
- --
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted
enabled? If so, try turning it off (unset
strict_threads). It's possible that that mailing list is stripping out
the usual email headers that establish threads (such as In-Reply-To
and References).
I added unset strict_threads to my folder-hook e.g.
folder-hook
Hello.
I want to create alias, for example 'friends' and file, for example
~/.mail_frieds,
which contains address list:
Andrey a...@mail.com
Liza b...@mail.com
...
Then I want to compose e-mail with command like this:
$mutt friends
Is it possible?
* Andrey Zhidenkov andrey.zhiden...@gmail.com [2009-09-30 09:59 +0400]:
Hello.
I want to create alias, for example 'friends' and file, for
example ~/.mail_frieds, which contains address list:
Andrey a...@mail.com
Liza b...@mail.com
...
alias andrey Andrey a...@mail.com
alias liza Liza b
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 02:37:09AM -0400, James Michael Fultz wrote:
* Andrey Zhidenkov andrey.zhiden...@gmail.com [2009-09-30 09:59 +0400]:
Hello.
I want to create alias, for example 'friends' and file, for example
~/.mail_frieds, which contains address list:
Andrey a...@mail.com Liza b
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:40:14PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
On 2009-09-09, Robert Holtzman wrote:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:47:31PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
On 2009-09-09, Gary Johnson wrote:
On 2009-09-09, Robert Holtzman wrote:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. I'm
looking for something like Alpine's A method to send a message to the
entire list
* On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 04:00PM -0700 Robert Holtzman (hol...@cox.net) muttered:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. I'm
On 2009-09-09, Robert Holtzman wrote:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. I'm
looking for something like Alpine's
On 2009-09-09, Gary Johnson wrote:
On 2009-09-09, Robert Holtzman wrote:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. I'm
* Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net [09-09-09 19:00]:
I can't find a way to compose *new* mail to a list without entering the
To: address manually. Tried running searches, the manual, and this
list's archives to no avail. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms. I'm
looking for something like
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:38:10AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Sunday, August 9 at 09:14 PM, quoth Robert Holtzman:
The problem was that I stupidly modified the list of mail lists to
duplicate the list of mailboxes. When I went back and realized what I
had done I restored both lists from
I set up my mailing lists to include +list-exim-users. Starting mutt
gives
the error:
Error in /home/holtzm/.muttrc, line 320: +list-exim-users: unknown
command
source: errors in /home/hotzm/.muttrc
Press any key to contiue...
Hitting a key continues with normal operation, all mailboxes being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sunday, August 9 at 01:07 PM, quoth Robert Holtzman:
I set up my mailing lists to include +list-exim-users. Starting mutt
gives
the error:
Error in /home/holtzm/.muttrc, line 320: +list-exim-users: unknown
command
source: errors in /home/hotzm
' entries for my muttrc means
that only one of the two list addresses gets into mutt. That seems to
have fixed the problem. It, of course, remains to be seen if there
are any messages on the list which *only* have one of the list
addresses which in turn happens to be the one I have eliminated
it sees a match.
make sure the list is in the subscribe list
subscribe list-name ## enough of the list-name to make it unique
need to add something here so that the my_hdr change does not continue:
unmy_hdr *
send-hook list-name 'my_hdr To: list-address'
warning
* Chris G on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 at 09:09:12 +0100
I am subscribed to a mailing list which accepts messages sent to two
different (but very similar) addresses. So, for mutt to recognise all
list messages I have to have two entries for the list.
However this means that when I L[ist
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:28:45PM +0200, Christian Ebert wrote:
* Chris G on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 at 09:09:12 +0100
I am subscribed to a mailing list which accepts messages sent to two
different (but very similar) addresses. So, for mutt to recognise all
list messages I have to have
I am subscribed to a mailing list which accepts messages sent to two
different (but very similar) addresses. So, for mutt to recognise all
list messages I have to have two entries for the list.
However this means that when I L[ist reply] I send to both addresses
which isn't very desirable
501 - 600 of 1389 matches
Mail list logo
