When I resend a message, using esc e, I find that my X-Mailer header is
not picked up from the original message. The manual indicates that
weeding is used when resending. My .muttrc contains:
ignore
unignorefrom: subject to cc mail-followup-to \
date x-mailer x-url
* John P Verel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-07-24 14:54]:
When I resend a message, using esc e, I find that my
X-Mailer header is not picked up from the original message.
The manual indicates that weeding is used when resending. ..
What obvious thing am I missing?
resending takes the message
? As the original message had an
X-Mailer header included, I took the manual to mean that it would be
picked up in the new message.
John
structure. Note that the
amount of headers included here depends on the value of the ``$weed''
variable.'
What does the last sentence mean? As the original message had an
X-Mailer header included, I took the manual to mean that it would be
picked up in the new message.
I seem to recall
of headers included
here depends on the value of the ``$weed'' variable.'
What does the last sentence mean?
a valid question! thanks for pointing it out - i did not see this.
As the original message had an X-Mailer header included, I took
the manual to mean that it would be picked up
I assume that if you do no specifically unignore X-* lines
then they will be weeded out.
let's test this:
$ mutt -f mutt.testmail
:unignore x-
resend-message
bingo - X-Test: line *included*! :-)
That does not work with x-mailer sven. Why didn't you test the header in
question?
* Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-07-24 20:45]:
I assume that if you do no specifically unignore X-* lines
then they will be weeded out.
let's test this:
$ mutt -f mutt.testmail
:unignore x-
resend-message
bingo - X-Test: line *included*! :-)
That does not work
On 07/24/02 22:11 +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
To summarize: Mutt will delete any X-Mailer header.
Confirmed. Thanks.
Thomas, et al --
...and then Thomas Hurst said...
%
...
% is better because it saves a single character. I personally find
% quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the
% exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of:
%
% C=This is quoted
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04- 1 01:03:29 -0700]:
Alas! John Buttery spake thus:
So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there
doesn't seem to be one.
It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word standard; it's
more like a deeply rooted
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:17:46:PM -0500 David Collantes wrote:
[ Mutt doesn't set X-Mailer ]
This is just a kind of advertising. If you'd like you can create one
with a simple my_hdr command like this one:
folder . my_hdr X-Mailer: Mutt/$version
How to grep the version number out of
begin quoting what David T-G said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:34:59PM -0500:
ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like
every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that.
Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
X-Mailer is not
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:54:39AM -0500:
Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled.
What standards are you talking about?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
On 03-31-2002 at 09:11 EST, Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What standards are you talking about?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
:- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so?
Hope this clears up the confusion.
It was never a confusion, just a wrong statement: yours. ;-)
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:05:22AM -0500:
:- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so?
sigh
RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards.
If you don't think so, stop using MIME, because it hasn't been adopted
as a Standard yet, despite
On 03-31-2002 at 12:24 EST, Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards.
sight Plonk!
College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida
Don't make me drive over there and smack you; it's only about 20 minutes
from Maitland. :-)
* Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]:
NO. It's Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this,
especially you David. ;-)
Well, I just did some googling and found a bunch of sites about quote
characters; none of my attempts at searching the RFCs turned up
* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]:
NO. It's Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this,
especially you David. ;-)
^ The problem with using just '' is that the quote string merges with
the text and becomes
* Thomas Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04- 1 02:52:00 +0100]:
* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
^ The problem with using just '' is that the quote string merges with
the text and becomes difficult to disinguish, not only for users, but
for reflowing algorithms which often have to put up
Alas! John Buttery spake thus:
So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there
doesn't seem to be one.
It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word standard; it's
more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the
early days of USENET (maybe
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Tatge said...
%
% John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
% * Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-29 22:27:02 +0100]:
% Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!]
%
%Actually, isn't the prefix supposed to be whereas mutt uses
%
Hi there!
On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header
was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said
that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will
take it out when postponing. My question is, what variable
David Collantes wrote:
On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header
was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said
that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will
take it out when postponing. My question
David Collantes wrote:
On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header
was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said
that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will
take it out when postponing. My question
to set
the X-Mailer header? I know I can (and I do) set user-agent = yes, but
which for X-Mailer?
X-Mailer is now deprecated in favor of User-Agent. Thus, Mutt weeds any
x-mailer fields it finds in the header and replaces it with its own
User-Agent field.
I still do not understand
* Michael Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
X-Mailer is now deprecated in favor of User-Agent.
Thus, Mutt weeds any x-mailer fields it finds in the
header and replaces it with its own User-Agent field.
* David Collantes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-29 19:38]:
I still do not understand. If I am given
Andreas Wessel:
What´s it with these "X"-headers anyway?
Does there have to be an X before any self entered header?
RFC?
the common use for it these days is to includer user-info in the headers
(e.g. my pgp-key#). they coexist peacefully with the rfc822 headers until
religion claims it's
clemensF proclaimed on mutt-users that:
Andreas Wessel:
What´s it with these "X"-headers anyway?
Does there have to be an X before any self entered header?
RFC?
the common use for it these days is to includer user-info in the headers
(e.g. my pgp-key#). they coexist peacefully with the
clemensF proclaimed on mutt-users that:
Suresh Ramasubramanian:
unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only)
+That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if it will get
rid of the X-Mailer tag (which is not generated by newer mutts anyway).
i think you repeat exactly what he said, and
Suresh Ramasubramanian:
:) ... but is there any hassle about X-Mailer: remaining in your mail? I
haven't yet seen an RFC raising any objection to X-Foo: headers yet :)
it's no rfc matter, it's personal taste.
If you don't like to see it you can always set ignore X-Mailer :)
but i want
my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of.
how do i do that?
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
do D4685B884894C483
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote:
my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of.
how do i do that?
unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only)
Reinhard
Reinhard Foerster proclaimed on mutt-users that:
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote:
my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of.
how do i do that?
unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only)
+That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if
clemens --
...and then clemensF said...
% my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of.
% how do i do that?
I'd try something like
my_hdr X-Mailer: ""
to generate an empty header, which mutt will then not include. I don't
think there's a $variable for that in
Reinhard Foerster:
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote:
my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of.
how do i do that?
unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only)
oh no, nono, please, there =has= to be a way! please, save me! do i have
to set
Suresh Ramasubramanian:
unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only)
+That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if it will get
rid of the X-Mailer tag (which is not generated by newer mutts anyway).
i think you repeat exactly what he said, and i'm not really sure if i am
grateful for
David T-G:
I'd try something like
my_hdr X-Mailer: ""
no go. recompiled the whole s**t. bet'ya can't see no heada!
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 matches
Mail list logo
