Hi, On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:11:22:PM -0700 Steve Talley wrote: > Rocco Rutte wrote: > > Right. But why not write a macro which: > > > > 1) pipes the message to a command (this command may be a shell > > script using another instance of Mutt to send the *changed* mail > > to yourself),
> What happens if the filter modifies the To: header? ;)
It doesn't work as expected and you have to edit your script with vim
again? ;-)
> Yes, I know I could use pipe + procmail/anotherinstanceofmutt/... to
> do this but it seems as much of a hack as setting $editor before
> invoking <edit-message>.
But it does what it was made for.
> Since mutt has the <pipe-message> functionality, and mutt has the
> <edit-message> functionality, why shouldn't it combine the two to
> create <filter-message> to save its users from the multitudes of
> hacks/workarounds?
Bloat. One of the reasons why I love Mutt is that I have a pool of
functionality I can (mis)use to do whatever I'd like to. Always
according to what is known as the Unix philosophy ('small is beautiful',
'no captive user-interfaces' and such).
There's only one thing I really miss: I'd like to be abled to define my
own commands. Something like:
define <my-command-1> '<mutt-command-1><mutt-command-2><enter>'
define <my-command-2> '<mutt-command-1><my-command-1><mutt-command-3><enter>'
in my .muttrc to bind to keys instead of building ugly looking
statements based on 'macro'.
Regards, Rocco
msg25851/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
