mmmh... I spoke too fast it does not work, instead, Reply-To: is
always set to the alternative email address, regardless of
send-hook '~t ^.*\.cn$' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Me Surname '
or defining a group, as Jon suggested...
can you please explain the syntax of that send-h
ok... I got it... it required "other than that"... this is working now
send-hook . 'my_hdr Reply-To: Usual Name '
send-hook "~t @*\.cn" 'my_hdr Reply-To: Special For Chinese
'
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Pau wrote:
>
> mmmh... I spoke too fa
thanks to you all! This is what I came up with... Since the only
problem I have is with China addresses, I have added this line
send-hook '~t ^.*\.cn$' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Me Surname '
and it works fine!
thanks again,
Pau
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:13 PM Jon LaBadie wrote
Pau,
> >
> > You can use a send-hook with something like this:
> >
> > send-hook '~t ' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Alternate
> > Email '
> >
Something like this is working for me:
set my_ChGrp='^(aa@chdom1\.com|bb@chdom2\.com|cc@chnet\.net)$&
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 07:09:11PM +0200, Pau wrote:
send-hook '~t ' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Pau '
but it is blank... what am I doing wrong?
Try something like:
send-hook '~t ^a@dddd\.cn$' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Pau '
Address patterns only match against the
but actually it is not working - I have tried with a single e-mail
address and the Reply-To: field is empty
I have defined
set edit_headers=yes
and later
send-hook '~t ' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Pau '
but it is blank... what am I doing wrong?
Pau
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 a
I send an e-mail to
> > my collaborators, if one of them is Chinese, they cannot reply back
> > because of their firewall. My mail seems to be blocked. They can
> > however receive my email without any trouble.
> >
> > What I do is to then change the Reply-To: in the he
Hi Pau,
You can use a send-hook with something like this:
send-hook '~t ' 'my_hdr Reply-To: Alternate Email
'
HTH!
- Chiraag
--
ಚಿರಾಗ್ ನಟರಾಜ್
Pronouns: he/him/his
20/10/20 17:53 ನಲ್ಲಿ, Pau ಬರೆದರು:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a problem with my main email a
publickey - mailinglist@chiraag.me.asc.pgp
Description: application/pgp-key
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
publickey - mailinglist@chiraag.me.asc.pgp
Description: application/pgp-key
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Dear all,
I have a problem with my main email address. When I send an e-mail to
my collaborators, if one of them is Chinese, they cannot reply back
because of their firewall. My mail seems to be blocked. They can
however receive my email without any trouble.
What I do is to then change the Reply
On 2020-09-23 03:22, Francesco Ariis wrote:
Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
In mail/news discussion,
some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers,
what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers?
A possible explanation: the s
* Francesco Ariis on Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 10:30:09 +0200:
Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*,
messages with the same Subject
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:30:09AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> > > By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*,
> >
Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 15:55 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> > By default mutt checks In-Reply-To/References to group threads; *also*,
> > messages with the same Subject are grouped together in «pseudo threads»
&g
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> Hello Kevin,
>
> Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
> > In mail/news discussion,
> > some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers,
> > what cause reply messages don&#x
Hello Kevin,
Il 23 settembre 2020 alle 13:52 Kevin Shell ha scritto:
> In mail/news discussion,
> some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers,
> what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers?
A possible explanation: the sender clicked «New mes
Hello mutt users.
I have a general question.
In mail/news discussion,
some reply messages have no In-Reply-To/References headers,
what cause reply messages don't have In-Reply-To/References headers?
What message these reply messages
linked to with regard to mutt message threading?
--
kevin
is just to reply to your own message - it is a
perfectly legitimate thing to do and looks just fine to everyone else.
Threading keeps it all together nicely anyway, so replying to a specific
old message is entirely sensible, yours or anyone else's.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:13:05PM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:33:45AM +0200, felixs wrote:
> > Please see UPDATE section
> > [...]
>
> Hello everyone,
> the `In-Reply-To` header for this discussion keeps getting mangled,
> which confu
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:33:45AM +0200, felixs wrote:
> Please see UPDATE section
> [...]
Hello everyone,
the `In-Reply-To` header for this discussion keeps getting mangled,
which confuses mutt and other programs (check the broken thread [1])
to no end. :P
Most likely the problem
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> >The majority of the community said nothing at all, which
> >suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give
> >a $#@! about this, as well the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:56:51PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
as well they shouldn't.
I'm pretty happy with the turnout. I've re-read the discussion and
On 2018-12-13 17:56, Derek Martin wrote:
> The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
> I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
> as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in response to Kevin's query,
> two people (Ariis and Christiansen) said
On 2018-12-13, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>
>> Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear
>> consideration, especially when based on reason.
>
> The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
> I sug
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 17:48:14 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> >If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it
> >is often desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the
>
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The majority of the community said nothing at all, which
suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give
a $#@! about this, as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in
response to Kevin's query, two people (Ariis
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > > > explains why: Because that usage is the one t
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:23:11PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> >>But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
> >>is a bit weak.
> >
> >
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 18:23:11 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> >
> >It recomments Mutt'
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients
> instead, the same logic can apply. A sends an email to B,C,D as a group
> conversation, "Where should we have lunch today". B may respond to A's
> email, bu
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:23:11PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
is a bit weak.
I'm not sure why you think that. You, just now, responded to
something I said.
On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> > > stated purpose of those fields. As such it is
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> >
> >It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> >gave in support of it
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> > stated purpose of those fields. As such it is the obvious, and should
> > be preferred, way
... Removing the other recipients would be the other
alternative but then it wouldn't be a group reply.
It is a recommendation in that it points out the reason to do this is
that it matches the stated purpose of the To: and Cc: fields, which it
just explained 4 paragraphs ago. Consider:
&g
On 2018-12-11, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
>> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>> >authors of the original message
; > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
> > it's only others who need them.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6
because
> > it's only others who need them.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6.3, paragraph 6):
>
>When a message is a reply to another mess
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
(3.6.3, paragraph 6):
[...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
It recomm
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
> >field
it's only others who need them.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6.3, paragraph 6):
>
>When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
re what you mean by this, but for the sake of
clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
(3.6.3, paragraph 6):
When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
field) or
On 05.12.18 00:44, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would
> > > make a difference.
> >
> > The ticket n
e RFC requires that all original recipients should be
included in reply (so at least Cc-ed).
But given the RFC distinctive meaning for the original To:/Cc:,
it make sense to preserve it in reply-to-all. Or dump the Cc:
field altogether and always list recipients in To:. :-)
Mihai
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> >I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make
> >a difference.
>
> The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
> place
On 30.11.18 01:34, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
> > difference.
>
> I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
> while To: is "addressed sp
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
> difference.
I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
while To: is "addressed specifically".
I have never noticed mutt behaviour, but
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
difference.
The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
place to have a discussion.
I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding
On 2018-11-29 13:26, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.
>
> By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to,
> etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The
> ticket reporter thought it made more s
Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.
By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to,
etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The
ticket reporter thought it made more sense for To recipients to remain
in the To list of th
On 2018-10-16 11:35, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:09:20AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > mutt seems to show a "C" flag in the index when my address is in the Cc
> > list. Is there anything similar for the Reply-To header?
>
> > Woul
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:09:20AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> mutt seems to show a "C" flag in the index when my address is in the Cc
> list. Is there anything similar for the Reply-To header?
I don't think so.
> Would it be easy for me (a competent C coder) to hack s
mutt seems to show a "C" flag in the index when my address is in the Cc
list. Is there anything similar for the Reply-To header? Would it be
easy for me (a competent C coder) to hack such a feature in?
--
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also po
On 2018-07-24 18:56, Hang Yuan wrote:
> > My header weeding settings are:
> >
> > ignore *
> > unignore In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To From Organization Date
> > Subject
> > hdr_order In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To From Organization Date
.@mutt.org is showed.
Your post shows here as:
From mutt-users-boun...@mutt.org Tue Jul 24 17:42:50 2018
From: Hang Yuan
My header weeding settings are:
ignore *
unignore In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To From Organization Date Subject
hdr_order In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To Fr
re as:
>From mutt-users-boun...@mutt.org Tue Jul 24 17:42:50 2018
From: Hang Yuan
My header weeding settings are:
ignore *
unignore In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To From Organization Date Subject
hdr_order In-reply-to References Reply-To cc To From Organization Date Subject
I.e. Remove
il to mutt-users@mutt.org
mailing list. There is no my email address displayed in the "From" field.
Regards,
Henry
It was dispayed for me so I used it to reply to you.
Thank you for the reply! So sounds it's my email client's problem which
can't show email header correct
On 07/24/2018 02:17 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2018-07-24 13:31, Hang Yuan wrote:
I use mutt + msmtp to send email. But I find when I reply an email
from mailing list, others in the mailing list will not see my email
address like "on behalf of hang.y...@linux.intel.com" in the
received email.
On 2018-07-24 13:31, Hang Yuan wrote:
> > I use mutt + msmtp to send email. But I find when I reply an email
> > from mailing list, others in the mailing list will not see my email
> > address like "on behalf of hang.y...@linux.intel.com" in the
> > received email. If I only send email to an indiv
On 07/24/2018 01:27 PM, mutt-users-boun...@mutt.org wrote:
I use mutt + msmtp to send email. But I find when I reply an email from
mailing list, others in the mailing list will not see my email address
like "on behalf of hang.y...@linux.intel.com" in the received email. If
I only send email to a
I use mutt + msmtp to send email. But I find when I reply an email from
mailing list, others in the mailing list will not see my email address
like "on behalf of hang.y...@linux.intel.com" in the received email. If
I only send email to an individual, the email head is correct with my
email addre
* ant [03-06-18 18:15]:
> a certain e-mail provider does this (a more complete
> example is at the end of this query).
>
> the From header is correct. so what i'm looking for
> is a message hook which redoes the Reply-To: header
> before the message gets shown
a certain e-mail provider does this (a more complete
example is at the end of this query).
the From header is correct. so what i'm looking for
is a message hook which redoes the Reply-To: header
before the message gets shown to me and it
somehow magically scans header, saves From addres
El Friday, 15 de December del 2017 a les 12:39, David Woodfall va escriure:
Mutt 1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
I have a folder-hook that sources a file. The file sets sendmail and
does this:
my_hdr Reply-To: m...@mydomain.com
But it refuses to work. I know the file /is/ being sourced because
sendmail
On 2017-12-17 19:31, Richard Z wrote:
> there seems to be a config var "reply_to", maybe that overrides your
> my_hdr? Also, using the config var might be easier than my_hdr.
That variable does something quite different; it's not even a string var
but rather a quad one. See the full documentatio
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:39:13PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
>Mutt 1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
>
>I have a folder-hook that sources a file. The file sets sendmail and
>does this:
>
>my_hdr Reply-To: m...@mydomain.com
>
>But it refuses to work. I know the file /is/ being s
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:39:13PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
> >Mutt 1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
> >
> >I have a folder-hook that sources a file. The file sets sendmail and
> >does this:
> >
> >my_hdr Reply-To: m...@mydomain.com
> >
> >But it refuses to
Mutt 1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
I have a folder-hook that sources a file. The file sets sendmail and
does this:
my_hdr Reply-To: m...@mydomain.com
But it refuses to work. I know the file /is/ being sourced because
sendmail changes.
Any ideas?
More info:
I tried running mutt from CLI using -e for
Mutt 1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
I have a folder-hook that sources a file. The file sets sendmail and
does this:
my_hdr Reply-To: m...@mydomain.com
But it refuses to work. I know the file /is/ being sourced because
sendmail changes.
Any ideas?
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 22:55:43 -0700, Tom Fowle wrote:
> Hello,
> Using mutt v1.42 under Debian wheezy
> I often save important received emails in seperately named files in my home
> directory. If I save such a message, then return to it in the same mutt
> session and reply, it appears my reply
goofed, using V1.52
T.F.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:55:43PM -0700, Tom Fowle wrote:
> Hello,
> Using mutt v1.42 under Debian wheezy
> I often save important received emails in seperately named files in my home
> directory. If I save such a message, then return to it in the same mutt
> session and
Hello,
Using mutt v1.42 under Debian wheezy
I often save important received emails in seperately named files in my home
directory. If I save such a message, then return to it in the same mutt
session and reply, it appears my reply message is not saved in ~/sent
This may also happen if I save the
* Oliver Graute [05-06-17 07:55]:
> Hello list,
>
> In the compose window I have an empty "Reply-To:" Header. Is this a
> mandatory Header Field? How can I remove these Header entry? or should I
> fill it out with my mail address from the "From" field?
man
Hello list,
In the compose window I have an empty "Reply-To:" Header. Is this a
mandatory Header Field? How can I remove these Header entry? or should I
fill it out with my mail address from the "From" field?
A mail partner is complaining about it and saied "Your reply-t
ese macros have severe usability problems because if
you enter editor for second time without resetting back the changed
settings (with j), your reply is garbled. Also I guess I'm not
using the power of mutt macro to full extent.
Another usability issue: if the email you reply to contains ,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Michael Elkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:28:22PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote:
>>
>> From the manual: "Also note that my_hdr commands which modify
>> recipient headers, or the message's subject, don't have any effect on
>> the current message when execu
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:28:22PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote:
From the manual: "Also note that my_hdr commands which modify
recipient headers, or the message's subject, don't have any effect on
the current message when executed from a send-hook."
The manual is correct on this point. send2-
I have been using send-hooks to add reply-to headers.
send-hook . unmy_hdr 'Reply-To:'
send-hook "~C l...@whatever.tld" my_hdr 'Reply-To: l...@whatever.tld'
This works (and maybe shouldn't, according to the manual). But I would
like using send2-hooks inste
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Michael Tatge wrote:
> * On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 02:51PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered:
>> Often I make the mistake of pressing "r" to reply to the list when
>> indeed I would like to press "L".
>> I can of cour
* On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 02:51PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered:
> Often I make the mistake of pressing "r" to reply to the list when
> indeed I would like to press "L".
> I can of course edit the "to" but I would like to just
> be able to
Dear all,
Often I make the mistake of pressing "r" to reply to the list when
indeed I would like to press "L". I realize this mistake at the
compose menu. I can of course edit the "to" but I would like to just
be able to press "L" (if I understand corre
Hi David,
Le 10-06-2015, à 11:17:22 -0500, David Champion a écrit :
> * On 10 Jun 2015, steve wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I often receive a message like this:
> >
> > From: A
> > To: Me, X, Y, Z
> > CC: others
> >
> > I would like to answer like this:
> >
> > From: Me
> > To: X, Y
* On 10 Jun 2015, steve wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I often receive a message like this:
>
> From: A
> To: Me, X, Y, Z
> CC: others
>
> I would like to answer like this:
>
> From: Me
> To: X, Y, Z
>
> so A and others are discarded. For the time being, I'm copy pasting
> addresses to
Hi,
I often receive a message like this:
From: A
To: Me, X, Y, Z
CC: others
I would like to answer like this:
From: Me
To: X, Y, Z
so A and others are discarded. For the time being, I'm copy pasting
addresses to achieve this, so it's not very convenient.
Is this possible
On 2014-01-23 14:48:34 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> BTW, "text/enriched"? Where does that lovely thing come from?
It was defined in RFC 1896. Almost nobody uses it.
pgpTs5PG0uWYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 20Jan2014 17:08, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:29:14PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> > * On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote:
>
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me
> > > (because i'm tired of writing back that
On 20Jan14 17:08 -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> set
> alternative_order text/plain text/enriched text/html
In addition to that I also use
auto_view text/html
which automatically inlines html content into the pager, by using the
.mailcap routine
text/html; /usr/bin/w3m -I %{charset} -T text
Hello,
thank you for your answers - special thanks to David for the detailed
considerations!
Will Yardley wrote on 20.01.14:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:29:14PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> > * On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote:
> > > i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mail
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:29:14PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me
> > (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
> I don't like HTML mail eithe
Rejo Zenger wrote:
> ++ 20/01/14 21:40 +0100 - Jan-Herbert Damm:
> >i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because
> >i'm
> >tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
> >
> >I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail
> >or scripting. Bu
* On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm
> tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
I don't like HTML mail either (for most constructions of "HTML mail").
However, as tired as you are of s
++ 20/01/14 21:40 +0100 - Jan-Herbert Damm:
>i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm
>tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
>
>I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail
>or scripting. But i am curious how this could be app
* Jan-Herbert Damm [01-20-14 15:43]:
> i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me
> (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
>
> I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail or
> scripting. But i am curious how this could be app
Hello all,
i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm
tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text).
I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail
or scripting. But i am curious how this could be approached.
A goolgle-search brought
Hi,
I have noticed that when pressing 'r' on a message where the reply-to is
set, that if you choose 'n' to each option - ctrl-g doesn't work and
pressing 'n' asks what you want to search for.
It is easy to demonstrate but not so easy to explain.
If yo
Hi,
How can I prevent the Reply-To field from being considered to be a
field I'm willing to edit?
Cheers,
--
Bastien
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15:07 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Russell Urquhart [05-27-10 09:00]:
> >
> > I was just wondering. In the Apple email tool, there was a bounce command
> > that would reply to a given email(s) and make them look like they had
> > boun
On 2010-05-27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Russell Urquhart [05-27-10 09:00]:
>>
>> I was just wondering. In the Apple email tool, there was a bounce command
>> that would reply to a given email(s) and make them look like they had
>> bounced, to the original sender
* Russell Urquhart [05-27-10 09:00]:
>
> I was just wondering. In the Apple email tool, there was a bounce command
> that would reply to a given email(s) and make them look like they had
> bounced, to the original sender.
>
> Is there a similar command or way to do that in mut
Hi,
I was just wondering. In the Apple email tool, there was a bounce command that
would reply to a given email(s) and make them look like they had bounced, to
the original sender.
Is there a similar command or way to do that in mutt?
Thanks,
Russ
1 - 100 of 507 matches
Mail list logo
