Thomas Schaper | 16 Apr 17:32 2015

Do not mark as read automatically

Hello all,

I would like mutt to not mark my message as read when I open it but only
when remove the 'N' flag.

Is this possible or is there a workaround?

Kind regards,
Luis Mochan | 16 Apr 16:33 2015

Re: mutt's counterpart feature to gmail's archive?

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:08:50AM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On 2015-04-16 03:28, Luis Mochan wrote:
> >>The system is not too
> >polished but serves me fine and has some similarities to gmails label
> >system. If interested, I can share it.
> I **am** interested, please do it

Dear Marco,
Please find attached my perl script. You should have the packages
Term::Readline (I use Term::Readline::Gnu) and File::Copy. It takes
two arguments, an action and the name of the file with the message to
edit. The action should be one of menu, edit, append, remove, show,
clean, list (in practive I only use 'edit'). If a change is performed,
the message is replaced by the edited version. To use the programs I
made some mutt macros. The relevant part of my muttrc file is:

# labels
# remember original editor. 
# Might not be what you want if editor is changed afterwards
set my_editor="$editor"

macro index y "<enter-command>set editor=\"~/.mutt/ edit\"\n\
<enter-command>set editor=\"$my_editor\"\n" "Edit labels"

macro index YE "<enter-command>set editor=\"~/.mutt/ edit\"\n\
<enter-command>set editor=\"$my_editor\"\n" "Edit labels"
(Continue reading)

Quolick | 16 Apr 00:32 2015

mutt's counterpart feature to gmail's archive?


What is mutt's counterpart feature to gmail's archive? what is used here?
I don't want to delete messages, but I want to have them locally searchable, like gmail can do.
What is the best practice? Just to move to another folder?

max | 13 Apr 14:15 2015

Place forwarded messages in thread

Dear Mutters,

When I forward an email, it is simply placed in the folder where I sent 
the email from. I use:
folder-hook . 'set record=^'

I would prefer it if the forwarded message were threaded to the original 
message. Currently I have to tag the forwarded message, move to the 
original message and hit '&' to make the forwarded message a 'child' of 
the original.

I hope that makes sense.

Is there a setting or macro that will take care of this for me?

Thank you in advance,
don warner saklad | 13 Apr 02:05 2015

How do you display only the messages marked for deletion?

How do you display only the messages marked for deletion?

Xu Wang | 11 Apr 00:34 2015

Macro for "reply and delete"

Dear Mutt users,

I would like to create a macro that replies to a message and then
deletes it. I tried as follows:

macro pager,compose \ca <reply><send-message><delete-message>

It does not work. I am indeed opened in the editor (so the <reply>
works) but then when I save and quit in Vim the others are not

I think the problem is that inbetween the <reply> and <send-message>
Vim is opened. Perhaps this messes things up?

Best regards,


Kris Edwards | 8 Apr 17:20 2015

Content-Type - HTML

Hi all - 

Like many mutt users, I have a corporate entity in my life which
demands a particular HTML signature.  

The only way I have been able to successfully change my content type
to HTML is with this macro which i execute right before sending:

macro   compose H     "^T^Utext/html;<enter>"

This of course is not ideal because if I should happen to forget, I
end up sending html source as my sig.

When I try to do this with: my_hdr Content-Type: text/html
in the conf for that account, I do see it add that to the headers when
I compose; however, if I ^T before I send, I can see the type is still
text/plain.  If I try a send hook using my corporate domain as the
match, I get no headers at all in my message.

Which method is best for what I am trying to accomplish?  (In short,
when I send a message from, I need the type to be text/html
and the html sig to be used.




(Continue reading)

Brandon Amos | 8 Apr 15:33 2015

Remove my alias emails from CC lists.

I forward many email accounts to a primary email account.
When I group-reply to emails sent to my non-primary account,
the other account is (reasonably) added to the CC list.

Is there a way to ignore a set of emails when I group-reply
so my aliases aren't added to the CC list?


P.S. I don't plan to use this feature to automatically remove
other people from the CC list. >:-)

David J. Weller-Fahy | 4 Apr 04:04 2015

Two private SMIME certificates conundrum

After much frustration I discovered why mutt wouldn't work with the
SMIME keys issued at work: there are two of the private keys (one for
signature, one for encryption), and a single public key.  As I have an
employer that is more than willing to let me use mutt (if I can get it
to work properly) I am inclined to do whatever I can to get signing and
encryption functional!

I've always used GPG for email encryption and am not familiar with SMIME
use in mutt, so I have some questions:

Is this a supported configuration?  If so, does anyone have an example
configuration they'd like to share?

If it is not a supported configuration, does anyone have a work around
they've used successfully?

To be clear, what I'd like is the following:

1) Mutt signs outgoing messages (if told to sign) with the signature

2) Mutt encrypts outgoing messages (if told to encrypt) with the
encryption key.

If it isn't a supported configuration, I suppose I'll have to dig into
the code... it can't be *that* hard, right? ;)


dave [ please don't CC me ]
(Continue reading)

Kevin J. McCarthy | 4 Apr 03:44 2015

Multiple crypt-hook behavior

I'm cleaning up and looking into committing the multiple crypt hook
patch, but need some feedback from people who use it.

The current behavior (without that patch) is to prompt whether to use
the crypt-hook value if one is found.  If the user answers "no" then
Mutt will use the original address for key selection instead.  Since
there can be at most one crypt-hook, this makes sense.

With this patch, it's less clear what the correct behavior should be
if the user user says "no".  The current patch will use the original
address and perform key selection with it, but doing this multiple times
doesn't seem right.

Would it be better for "no" to completely skip key selection *unless*
it's the last crypt-hook and they haven't selected a key yet?

As an example, let's say there are 5 crypt-hooks for an address.  If you
chose "yes" for the first crypt-hook, then you could say "no" to the
next four and it wouldn't perform any key selection for those four.

If you said "no" all five times, then for the first four, it wouldn't
perform key selection, but the fifth "no" would cause Mutt to perform
key selection on the original address.

Does that sound reasonable, or would a different behavior be more

Tim Johnson | 3 Apr 22:02 2015

blacklisted IP - my setup?


Is there something wrong with my headers and if so, how do I correct


tim at tee jay forty nine dot com or akwebsoft dot com,