substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-02-21 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Roman Neuhauser
> 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 

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Simon White
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Simon White
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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.

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Rocco Rutte
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

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-26 Thread Markus Hubig
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-

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-27 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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.

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-27 Thread Hanspeter Roth
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? > >

Re: substituing ~l in send-hook

2002-03-27 Thread Rocco Rutte
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