1 Jan 04:05
1 Jan 16:26
Re: Happy New Year!
Francesco Ciattaglia <francesco.ciattaglia <at> alice.it>
2009-01-01 15:26:25 GMT
2009-01-01 15:26:25 GMT
* Chris Jones <cjns1989 <at> gmail.com> [01.01.09 16:07]: > To all .. and M. Elkins in particular. > * Ciò letto, correndo giovedì 01 gennaio 2009, alle 16 e 24 rispondo così: Happy New Year to all we, muttersAtaualpa aka Francesco Ciattaglia. -- -- oOoOo Di fronte ad un potenziale cliente il segreto per vendere oOoOo oOoOo sta nell'abilità di ascoltare più che nell'abilità di oOoOo oOoOo parlare. [Philip Matlick] oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo - Avoid the Gates of Hell! Choose Linux. || www.ataualpa.altervista.org
2 Jan 04:15
2 Jan 04:22
2 Jan 05:29
Keeping all headers on edited messages piped thru procmail?
rj <rj <at> panix.com>
2009-01-02 04:29:58 GMT
2009-01-02 04:29:58 GMT
When I edit a message, the edited version of it appears as a separate, new message in mutt's index, but without a "Lines:" header. So I pipe it through procmail where I have this in my procmailrc: # -------------------------------------------------------- # Generate a "Lines:" header (needed for maildir mailbox # format) using procmail's scoring mechanism. Only # message-body lines are counted (not the headers): :0 Bfhw * -1^0 * 1^1 ^.*$ |formail -I"Lines: $=" # -------------------------------------------------------- This recipe adds a custom "Lines:" header, and it appears as well to retain the "unignore" headers that are defined as such in my .muttrc. But it strips out all of the other headers that were in the original, not-piped-through-procmail versions of the message (whether edited or non-edited). Can this recipe be modified to keep all the original headers intact while continuing to generate the custom "Lines:" header?
2 Jan 05:52
Re: Conditional Configuration in .muttrc
Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
2009-01-02 04:52:08 GMT
2009-01-02 04:52:08 GMT
Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Monday, December 29 at 12:15 PM, quoth Michael Kjorling: > > Untested, but should work: > > `if [ ... ]; then echo 'source onefile.muttrc'; else echo 'source otherfile.muttrc'; fi` > > > > Then just fill in "onefile.muttrc" and "otherfile.muttrc" with > > whichever settings are appropriate given the conditional. > > A slightly more succinct way of doing it is: > > source `[ ... ] && echo onefile.muttrc || echo twofile.muttrc` Interesting ideas. Unfortunately those do lead to a proliferation of configuration files. Oh well. I guess that is just the way things are going to be. Thanks to both of you! Bob
2 Jan 11:48
Re: Keeping all headers on edited messages piped thru procmail?
Michael Kjorling <michael <at> kjorling.com>
2009-01-02 10:48:33 GMT
2009-01-02 10:48:33 GMT
On 1 Jan 2009 23:29 -0500, by rj <at> panix.com (rj): > # -------------------------------------------------------- > # Generate a "Lines:" header (needed for maildir mailbox > # format) using procmail's scoring mechanism. Only > # message-body lines are counted (not the headers): It doesn't answer your question, but since when does maildir need a "Lines:" header? I did a quick scan over a few fairly large maildir mailboxes that I have, with messages created by a number of different MUAs, and mutt certainly has no problem dealing with mailboxes where no or only very few messages have such a header. -- -- Michael Kjörling .. michael <at> kjorling.se .. http://michael.kjorling.se * ..... No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings ..... * * ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 * * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments *
2 Jan 12:50
Mutt with To Do or x-labels
Joseph <tech <at> ekn.com>
2009-01-02 11:50:24 GMT
2009-01-02 11:50:24 GMT
In looking for ways to mark or flag to do messages, is there a way to use x-labels without adding a patch to devel mutt? Or maybe you have a better way to mark/flag follow up issues on emails... -- -- respectfully, Joseph
2 Jan 13:04
Re: Mutt with To Do or x-labels
Michael Kjorling <michael <at> kjorling.com>
2009-01-02 12:04:33 GMT
2009-01-02 12:04:33 GMT
On 2 Jan 2009 06:50 -0500, by tech <at> ekn.com (Joseph): > In looking for ways to mark or flag to do messages, is there a way to > use x-labels without adding a patch to devel mutt? I have thought about using a custom message editor together with the edit-message command to add/remove flags in the X-Label header (that one can easily be displayed in the index; I believe it is '%y'), but haven't got around to implementing anything like that. > Or maybe you have a better way to mark/flag follow up issues on > emails... Keeping a clean mailbox is an easy option. Have one mailbox, maybe even the inbox, completely clean except for those messages that still need to be acted upon in some manner. You can then send yourself mails to create tasks or to-do items. If you want to keep old mails around for reference, just put them in a different mailbox used for archival purposes. -- -- Michael Kjörling .. michael <at> kjorling.se .. http://michael.kjorling.se * ..... No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings ..... * * ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 * * ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments *
2 Jan 13:08
Re: Mutt with To Do or x-labels
Marianne <marianne.promberger <at> gmail.com>
2009-01-02 12:08:07 GMT
2009-01-02 12:08:07 GMT
Excerpts from Joseph's message of Fri Jan 02 12:50:24 +0100 2009: > In looking for ways to mark or flag to do messages, is there a way to > use x-labels without adding a patch to devel mutt? Have a look at http://footils.org/cms/show/59 m.
RSS Feed