On 2018-01-24 19:15:08 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > Hi Andras, > > I thought this post would generate more traffic; I'm very interested in > others opinions on this too, but I'll pipe in. > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:13:54PM +0000, Andras Salamon wrote: > > Is there any reasonable use case for send-hook modifying the MUA state > > for _subsequent messages only_, but not the current message? There are > > good _technical_ reasons due to data structures in mutt's source code, > > but I can't think of any good use cases. > > Just to be clear, the send and reply hooks run after recipients (To, Cc, > Bcc) and Subject are set. So one of those hooks containing a my_hdr > command for those particular headers won't have effect for the current > message. > > However, a my_hdr in these hooks setting other headers, including From, > _will_ affect the current message. Changes to config vars such as > $sendmail etc are also effective immediately. > > I don't make much use of auto-recipients or subject transformation, so I > may have a blind spot here. Do people feel the parent ticket represents > a broad need that Mutt doesn't address?
I think that it works as expected, the goal of the "my_hdr" command not being to change a header, but to create a default one. But a new command to modify a header for the current message might be useful, and probably cleaner for send-hook's. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
