On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:57:45PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > reply-hook . \ > 'set signature=~/.standardsig.txt' > > reply-hook '~e owner-mutt-us...@mutt.org' \ > 'set signature=~/.muttsig.txt' > > Yes, you *can* embed reply-hooks in folder-hooks, but then things get > ugly because you'd need to unhook things (the unhook is there to > prevent mutt from building up absurdly long chains of redundant > hooks), which interacts badly with any other reply-hooks you happen to > have (i.e. they'd need to be re-established within the folder-hook > too): > > folder-hook . \ > 'unhook reply-hook ; \ > reply-hook . "set signature=stdsig.txt"; \ > reply-hook "~C m...@gmail" "set signature=gmailsig.txt"' > > folder-hook =lists.mutt \ > 'unhook reply-hook ; \ > set signature=muttsig.txt' > > Does that make sense?
Yes, I think so. I'll simply change my folder-hook to be a send-hook and place it after my other send-hook lines. Thank you very much for explaining all of that. -- Bill Moseley. mose...@hank.org Sent from my iMutt
