Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on
10/03/2001:
> > > is there a better way?
> >
> >Take a look at:
> >
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/mutt-users@mutt.org/msg03785.html
>
> hmm...yes. apparently this isn't an uncommon question of late.
> still, that solution, while interesting (i could have opted for a bcc
> to myname+fcc and made a .forward+fcc that just stuffed it in a file),
> relies on the mta (mutt passes the message to the mta and the mta
> splits it and effectively passes it back). i have decided that i
> don't trust the mta to get involved in this.
Just out of curiosity, why don't you want the MTA to be involved
in delivering the message? That's what the MTA does!
I think I would set up a send-hook that adds an X-Me (or
whatever) header, which would be caught by a procmail
rule, which would look something like:
:0:
* ^X-Me:
sent-`date +%m-%d-%Y`
Complimenting this would be a small cron entry:
58 23 * * * (TODAY=`/usr/bin/date +"$HOME/Mail/sent-%m-%d-%Y"` \
/usr/bin/rm $HOME/Mail/send-today && \
/usr/bin/touch $TODAY && \
/usr/bin/ln -s $TODAY sent-today)
which symlinks the current day's sent-* mbox to sent-today
(darren)
--
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence.
-- W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876
