I'd like to create a generic send-hook which substitutes ~l,
something like:
send-hook ~l 'my_hdr Reply-To: ~l'
The ~l won't be substituted in my_hdr. Is there some means to achieve
this?
-Hanspeter
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:57:27 +0100
> From: Hanspeter Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: substituing ~l in send-hook
>
> I'd like to create a generic send-hook which substitutes ~l,
> something like:
>
> send-hook ~l
On Mar 26 at 17:34, Roman Neuhauser spoke:
> > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:57:27 +0100
> > Subject: substituing ~l in send-hook
> >
> > I'd like to create a generic send-hook which substitutes ~l,
> > something like:
> >
> > send-hook ~l
26-Mar-02 at 17:35, Hanspeter Roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> No I haven't received an answer. I think it's just not supported in
> this context.
> The workaround is to put a send-hook for each mailinglist. But not
> very elegant...
If you use L (default mapping) to reply to lists, you will al
26-Mar-02 at 18:51, Hanspeter Roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> You are assuming that /everybody/ is using Mutt with mailing lists.
> I do use Mutt and I do use L.
> But should I expect everybody to switch to Mutt?
> Some people still want to use Emacs, Pine, Elm or Netscape Mail...
> Not every m
On Mar 26 at 17:38, Simon White spoke:
>
> If you use L (default mapping) to reply to lists, you will always reply
> just to the list address, as long as it is defined as a list in your
> muttrc.
>
> The reply-to should then be redundant, because people /should/ just reply
> to the list only.
On Mar 26 at 17:56, Simon White spoke:
> 26-Mar-02 at 18:51, Hanspeter Roth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > You are assuming that /everybody/ is using Mutt with mailing lists.
> > I do use Mutt and I do use L.
> > But should I expect everybody to switch to Mutt?
> > Some people still want to us
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:38:10:PM + Simon White wrote:
> If you use L (default mapping) to reply to lists, you will always reply
> just to the list address, as long as it is defined as a list in your
> muttrc.
> The reply-to should then be redundant, because people /should/ just reply
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> On Mar 26 at 17:34, Roman Neuhauser spoke:
>
> > > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:57:27 +0100
> > > Subject: substituing ~l in send-hook
> > >
> > > I'd like to create a generic send-
On Mar 26 at 20:38, Rocco Rutte spoke:
>
> Yes, but some people on other lists do not use mutt and/or not L. As I
> create the 'subscribe' entries for mutt's config by a script I also
> create folder-hooks to set Reply-To: to the list address. Works.
Good idea. I probably should do the same.
On Mar 27 at 04:41, Markus Hubig spoke:
> > > > I'd like to create a generic send-hook which substitutes ~l,
> > > > something like:
> > > >
> > > > send-hook ~l 'my_hdr Reply-To: ~l'
> > > >
> > > > The ~l won't be substituted in my_hdr. Is there some means to achieve
> > > > this?
>
>
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:03:43:AM +0100 Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> On Mar 26 at 20:38, Rocco Rutte spoke:
> > Yes, but some people on other lists do not use mutt and/or not L. As I
> > create the 'subscribe' entries for mutt's config by a script I also
> > create folder-hooks to set Reply-To
12 matches
Mail list logo