Steve -- This is my only other response on the subject, I promise :-)
...and then Steve Talley said... % % It looks like modifying the $editor variable and resetting it later is % the easiest solution. It's a shame mutt can't do this more elegantly. I can't imagine a more elegant way, since the proposed filter-message command would have to have a script name as input before it could process the message. If you have any ideas, can you outline how it would work and be elegant? Perhaps something as simple as renaming the edit-message function to tweak-message, telling it to use $tweak_prog which defaults to $editor if $t_p is undefined, and explaining in the manual why tweak-message is bound to 'e' would do it. As I sit here spelling it out it's not a bad idea (though undoubtedly open to refinement!), though most folks would only use it to edit a message, and tweaking is certainly one form of editing, so perhaps a patch which modifies edit-message to use $edit_filter_program or, if not defined, $editor would get you the elegance you desire. That doesn't really take care of the "arbitrary" requirement, though -- unless you get into macros to adjust the value of $e_f_p ;-) % % Steve HTH & HAND and this is starting to become interesting :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
