In message 201209111805.q8bi5nla016...@ginseng.hep.wisc.edu, ra...@hep.wisc.e
du writes:
Am I dinosaur for still using procmail??
I mean, is there something better?
If not, does anyone have patches for logging e.g. date, from, to?
OMG, it just occurred to me: maybe it's INFERIOR to slocal these
Am I dinosaur for still using procmail??
I mean, is there something better?
If not, does anyone have patches for logging e.g. date, from, to?
OMG, it just occurred to me: maybe it's INFERIOR to slocal these days!?!?
:)
No patch needed.
From my .procmailrc (The first LOG call
ra...@hep.wisc.edu wrote:
Am I dinosaur for still using procmail??
I mean, is there something better?
If not, does anyone have patches for logging e.g. date, from, to?
OMG, it just occurred to me: maybe it's INFERIOR to slocal these days!?!?
:)
No patch needed.
Hi rader,
I'm mostly interested in answering the question which folder did the
recent msg FROM so-and-so@somewhere go into?
I haven't been following the thread, having not used procmail in years,
but would this do? (Untried.)
for f in `folders -fast`; do
pick -seq lp -from foo
is it possible you don't have a 'From ' line in the mail content
that's being filtered? postfix delivers my mail via procmail to
multiple mailbox files, and then i inc from those into my
(similarly-named) MH mail folders.
also, my .procmailrc doesn't touch LOGABSTRACT in any way -- it's
left at
Jon Steinhart j...@fourwinds.com writes:
Attach was implemented as part of whatnow because that seemed to be the place
to put it for one who uses comp/repl/forw/etc. like I do and I implemented it.
It couldn't be done as a shell command combined with the above because that
would have meant you'd
On 12 September 2012 at 8:16, ra...@hep.wisc.edu wrote:
I'm mostly interested in answering the question which folder
did the recent msg FROM so-and-so@somewhere go into?
Maybe the attached script is a useful way to answer that question
after the fact? The script has other uses too, as it's
Hi Norm,
Of historical interest:
Whatnow now has features not available to shell users. This
represents, the perhaps inevitable, denouement of an argument I lost
decades ago. I believed then, and believe now, that the whatnow
feature was a mistake; that the correct in terface between mh
Norm wrote:
Of historical interest:
Whatnow now has features not available to shell users. This represents,
the perhaps inevitable, denouement of an argument I lost decades ago. I
believed then, and believe now, that the whatnow feature was a mistake;
that the correct interface between mh
I'm working on the attach, alist, detach, etc. write up.
It seems that attaching a directory, attaches all the files at the top level of
that directory. Correct?
But if any of those files happen to be a directory, then it results in an
under-the-hood Nmh-Attachment: header getting transmitted
It seems that attaching a directory, attaches all the files at the top level of
that directory. Correct?
I didn't know about that, but cool.
But if any of those files happen to be a directory, then it results in an
under-the-hood Nmh-Attachment: header getting transmitted all the way to
Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com writes:
It seems that attaching a directory, attaches all the files at the top level
of
that directory. Correct?
I didn't know about that, but cool.
What, you didn't read the what now man page?
But if any of those files happen to be a directory, then it results in
Norm wrote:
It seems that attaching a directory, attaches all the files at the
top level of that directory. Correct?
Yes, it does whatever ls does.
But if any of those files happen to be a directory, then it results
in an under-the-hood Nmh-Attachment: header getting transmitted
all the
David Levine levin...@acm.org writes:
Norm wrote:
Of historical interest:
Whatnow now has features not available to shell users. This represents,
the perhaps inevitable, denouement of an argument I lost decades ago. I
believed then, and believe now, that the whatnow feature was a mistake;
n...@dad.org writes:
If a user doesn't want to use whatnow but wants to use
the attach feature, they could manage the magic headers
manually or via simple scripts (or now, mhmail).
But what if she's not as smart or as knowledgeble as you?
Then you, being smarter should help her out by
Here's my problem: I invariably enter l at the whatnow prompt
when I want list. That worked until attach was added (10 years
ago!), but I still do it.
I just realized that it doesn't have to be that way. We
currently have a similar situation with a that we handle
differently:
(a)ttach
If a user doesn't want to use whatnow but wants to use
the attach feature, they could manage the magic headers
manually or via simple scripts (or now, mhmail).
Guys,
Is it me, or could we implement attach via:
% anno +drafts 1 -append -nodate -component Nmh-Attachment -text
your-file-name-here
Ken Hornstein writes:
If a user doesn't want to use whatnow but wants to use
the attach feature, they could manage the magic headers
manually or via simple scripts (or now, mhmail).
Guys,
Is it me, or could we implement attach via:
% anno +drafts 1 -append -nodate -component
Ken wrote:
Is it me, or could we implement attach via:
% anno +drafts 1 -append -nodate -component Nmh-Attachment -text
your-file-name-here
Brilliant!
It'd have to watch out for multiple files (attach foo*.jpg).
David
___
Nmh-workers mailing
Ken Hornstein writes:
Ah. Well, if your argument is with the existence of whatnow as opposed
to the addition of attach to the existing whatnow we're in agreement.
As per other heated discussions on this list, there is a strong don't
break things mentality on this list (which got misplaced on
20 matches
Mail list logo
