On 21.02.17 13:28, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 05:27:55PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > reply-hook '~f x...@yyy.asn.au' \ > > '<edit-to><kill-line>z...@bigpond.com<enter>' > > You'll want to use the "push" command: > reply-hook '~f x...@yyy.asn.au' \ > 'push <edit-to><kill-line>z...@bigpond.com<enter>' > > *However*, this kind of thing is very delicate.
That is becoming increasingly evident. With a 'y' immediately before the first '<', the improvement is triggering on the x...@yyy.asn.au, and pushing the 'y', as evidenced by inclusion without the prompt which occurs for any other reply target. But, sadly, no <edit-to> is done, and all 4 fields of the From: header are transferred to To:, as if nothing other than the 'y' were pushed. > Any prompts that occur after the hook is set will try to read from the > pushed input, for example $include should either be set to yes/no or > you'll need to add a "y" at the beginning of the push string for that > prompt. Tried "set include=yes", but that also fails to <edit-to>. I'll try to upgrade mutt, something which has languished on the ToDo list for a long time. (Too many irons in the fire.) Thanks for taking a nibble at it, Kevin. Erik
