Re: Documentation bug regarding `date_format'?
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:42:15 +0100, Dave Pearson wrote: > > According to section 6.3.27 of the mutt manual (I'm running 1.2.5i here) the > > variable `date_format' "controls the format of the date printed by the > > ``%d'' sequence in ``index_format''". > > > > Further, section 6.3.73 says that the %d and %D sequences display the date > > and time of a message "in the format specified by ``date_format''". > > > > However, it would appear that `date_format' doesn't (quite rightly?) work > > for all uses of the `index_format' sequences. > > Would it? Not to me. To quote section 6.3.27: , | 6.3.27. date_format | | Type: string | Default: "!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z" | | This variable controls the format of the date printed by the ``%d'' | sequence in ``index_format''. ` if it doesn't say that it will affect `index_format' what does it mean when it says that it controls the format of the date printed by "%d" when used in `index_format'? In the tests I've done here it doesn't do that. Using %d and changing `date_format' has no affect on the display of an index. To quote section 6.3.73: , | %d date and time of the message in the format | specified by ``date_format'' converted to | sender's time zone | %D date and time of the message in the format | specified by ``date_format'' converted to | the local time zone ` This, again, suggests that the index display of dates can be controlled by the variable `date_format'. > > Is this a documentation bug? > > I don't see any bug here. The bug I'm thinking of is the one above, where it says that it affects `index_format' when it doesn't appear to do so. -- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Re: LBDB
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:39:41AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote: > I am building this package, and right now I am getting this, but not sure > if I would be loosing some abilites of the software by not having these > installed... > > checking for awk... /bin/awk > checking for mawk... NONE > checking for gawk... /bin/gawk > checking for nawk... NONE > ... > checking for ypcat... no > > I've added abook.. Funnily enough I installed the lbdb last week (how did I go so long without it, what a great bit of software!). If I'm to understand the tool fully I think you'll find that, yes, you are loosing the ability to do queries using those tools. However, that might well be what you want. For example, my lbdb installation only does lookups using the inmail and gpg modules (actually it also does lookups in my JPilot copy of my Palm address DB using a module I wrote, I've submitted to Roland for inclusion in lbdb). BTW, if there are any emacs using lbdb users out there I've written an emacs lbdb interface. It's on my web pages. -- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Re: multiple mailboxes for mailing lists?
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:36:52PM -0500 or thereabouts, Gary wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:14:22PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alex Farber wrote: > > > Maybe it says how clueless I am, maybe - that mutt is not complete. It's > > not a flame, just wanted to let you know about some different opinion. > > Alex, One of the best procmails / muttrc's that I have seen for the > newbieis from Telsa on her webpage. You can find it off of the > Mutt.org site. She spent a lot of time commenting on every aspect, > and when I first started out using Mutt, I was able to pick up things > very quickly by seeing what she had written -- how it all fit > together. Actually, you can just copy hers and change the appropriate > mbox names, etc, and you will be up and running in no time. Thank you so much! That's how I hoped it would work :) Beware: it is for Mutt-1.0 and all the mailing list stuff will break for Mutt-1.2. There is a README on the mutt.org site about moving from 1.0 to 1.2. Eventually I shall move myself, and I shall put a "what this looks like for 1.2" version there. http://www.linux.org.uk/~telsa/BitsAndPieces/cave.html Telsa PS If you copy it, the other default you will want to change from mine is the printer stuff. "lpr" is much more likely than "lpr -P lp0" for most people.
Why does generate an error when a mailbox is empty?
Over on news:comp.mail.mutt> someone was trying to work out how to easily get into mutt's "-y screen" once mutt is up and running. They also wanted to ensure that the current mailbox "state" was saved before changing to this new screen. The obvious answer seems to be something like this: , | macro index "y" "?" | macro pager "y" "?" ` This works fine *unless* the mailbox you're currently in is empty. Instead the macro stops playing after the because, instead of syncing the empty mailbox, it generates a "There are no messages". Two questions arise from this. First, is there a reason why the syncing of an empty mailbox is considered to be an error? Second, if there is a good reason for this can anyone think of a method of doing the above and have it work in non-empty and empty folders? -- Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Re: Refresh Mailboxes on 'c?'
Evan -- ...and then Evan Vetere said... % % mailboxes ! `echo $HOME/mail/*` % % This works gorgeously, adding any mailboxes I have in ~/mail to my Yay :-) % viewable list on launch. But if mail arrives and gets routed via % procmail to a -new- mailbox -while I am in mutt-, then I won't see that % mail until I've exited mutt and relaunched it, rebuilding the mailboxes % list. Well, that's one way to do it... There are others ;-) % % I'm really picking nits here in the quest to achieve the Ultimate MUA % Experience. :) Is there a way of binding 'mailboxes ~ `echo...`' to the That's certainly an admirable goal! % 'c' key, transparently, without overriding the current functioning of % that key? What I would do: set save_empty so that my empty mailfolders don't disappear or just re-source your .muttrc any time you want to update your mailbox list % % (If there's a different method, that'd be great too.) HTH & HAND % % -- % Evan Vetere | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Mail text as attachments?
Eric -- ...and then Eric Osborne said... % % Is there some way to make mutt send the body of the message as an In fact, I believe that in a simple message the body *is* the first (and only) attachment, so the answer is "yes" :-) % attachment (albeit to an otherwise empty message)? We use PGP here a % bit, and I'm getting whined at by people with stupid mailers. Sin the Well, there's a good cure for that... Reformat and install Linux ;-) % message text itself is encrypted, they need to save the text to a % file, whereas if I sent messages that showed up as attachments, these % broken mailers could decode them automatically. Here's where I'm confused. The only broken mailers I know in this context are Eudora and Outlook (though TheBat! may qualify, and I'm sure there are others), and they usually *can't* deal with attachments very well. For them, the usual answer is to send your PGP mail the old way (in-line) instead of as an attachement; I see that you're using 1.2, so you can control that behavior by setting "pgp_create_traditional" to true (in-line) or false (MIME). % % Thanks! HTH & HAND % % eric :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Qmail, suggestions on Mail Management
Jason, et al -- ...and then Jason Helfman said... % A friend of mine at work made a great suggestion to me, and I think I am % finding it actually a good idea. Along his lines of thinking, I am using Great! We love those :-) % Qmail. I really enjoy it, and find it not hard to install after the % first couple of installs. I have it working lovley in cooperation with % Fetchmail and Procmail. He suggested not to have each directory in Good deal. I don't have to manage any of the installations, but we've been happy with qmail here on my server, too. % MAILDIR format, because it just makes the directory structure for your Yeah; I would agree with that. % mailboxes the pits. And it's not really important mail that is coming in % to those boxes, just mailing lists for kernel, or bugs, or say mutt. And % those are available online any way for the most part. I tend to agree % with that philosophy. Personally, I just don't use maildir because I'm happy with mbox; it certainly has nothing to do with me surfing for info elsewhere. % % So those mails are coming in via mbox, and anything that passes through % all the filters, comes to the last filter and gets passed to a default % of MAILDIR format. My spool. Hokay. Any particular reason, or do you just want to have a maildir so that you can say you do? % % My question is this. First. What do you think of this reasoning? Second. % I am wondering if I could use Rolands patch for compression just on my % "backup-inbox" since that is in mbox format, or what I am thinking is, Using anything other than your MDA's locking on a box receiving incoming mail is generally a bad idea, and that would also go for this box. Sure, you can *read* the mailbox just fine, but delivering to it is unsafe unless you also want to write the wrappers to handle locking and then ensure that delivery *only* happens through your wrappers. Just pumping the incoming mail mail through gzip and appending it to the mailbox is a disaster waiting to happen. % convert that to the MAILDIR structure and just sending it to a cronjob % to gzip it up. I don't know if Roland's patch supports MAILDIR though? maildir wouldn't take too well to gzipping because of the great number of small messages, but I should think that it would be happy first being tarred and *then* zipped, and I see no reason the new functionality couldn't be expanded to support that (at least .tar.gz, but maybe even .tar and .gz and nesting; I haven't tried either). % % On a side note, does anyone like the Little Big Brothers Database? What % do you like about it? What don't you like about it? Would you suggest % checking it out? I'd suggest checking it out based on hearsay alone; I plan to get around to it one of these days but haven't yet. % % Thanks HTH & HAND :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Documentation bug regarding `date_format'?
date_format DOES affect %d in the index, IFF you're actually using
%d. Probably you're using %{} instead. Please check you actual
index_format closely. Note the default index_format does not use %d.
On Monday, 21 August 2000 at 08:58, Dave Pearson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:16:03AM +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:42:15 +0100, Dave Pearson wrote:
> > > According to section 6.3.27 of the mutt manual (I'm running 1.2.5i here) the
> > > variable `date_format' "controls the format of the date printed by the
> > > ``%d'' sequence in ``index_format''".
> > >
> > > Further, section 6.3.73 says that the %d and %D sequences display the date
> > > and time of a message "in the format specified by ``date_format''".
> > >
> > > However, it would appear that `date_format' doesn't (quite rightly?) work
> > > for all uses of the `index_format' sequences.
> >
> > Would it? Not to me.
>
> To quote section 6.3.27:
>
> ,
> | 6.3.27. date_format
> |
> | Type: string
> | Default: "!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z"
> |
> | This variable controls the format of the date printed by the ``%d''
> | sequence in ``index_format''.
> `
>
> if it doesn't say that it will affect `index_format' what does it mean when
> it says that it controls the format of the date printed by "%d" when used in
> `index_format'? In the tests I've done here it doesn't do that. Using %d and
> changing `date_format' has no affect on the display of an index.
>
> To quote section 6.3.73:
>
> ,
> | %d date and time of the message in the format
> | specified by ``date_format'' converted to
> | sender's time zone
> | %D date and time of the message in the format
> | specified by ``date_format'' converted to
> | the local time zone
> `
>
> This, again, suggests that the index display of dates can be controlled by
> the variable `date_format'.
>
> > > Is this a documentation bug?
> >
> > I don't see any bug here.
>
> The bug I'm thinking of is the one above, where it says that it affects
> `index_format' when it doesn't appear to do so.
>
--
Don't make Godzilla mad!
PGP signature
Re: Mail text as attachments?
> Here's where I'm confused. The only broken mailers I know in this > context are Eudora and Outlook (though TheBat! may qualify, and I'm > sure there are others), and they usually *can't* deal with attachments > very well. For them, the usual answer is to send your PGP mail the old > way (in-line) instead of as an attachement; I see that you're using 1.2, > so you can control that behavior by setting "pgp_create_traditional" > to true (in-line) or false (MIME). After some clarification, the problem actually is: -- Not exactly, My mailer handles encrypted data that's embedded as the body of the email fine. The problem is when the data comes as an attachment without an extension on it. Without a .pgp or .asc extension Eudora doesn't know to pass it to pgp for decryption. I can still decrypt it but I have to detach and save it with a .pgp extension and then run pgp against the file. Like I said it's not a big deal, I just figured I would ask. --- So what I'd really like to do is either * _not_ treat pgp messages as attachments, or * find some way to put a .pgp extension on an attachment name ...but what confuses me is that I look at a message I sent, and I see: Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:15:38 -0400 From: Eric Osborne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Eric Osborne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: KEEP: foo pgp 1 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/encrypted; protocol="application/pgp-encrypted"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.asc" Version: 1 --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU ...so it's already called 'msg.asc'. Is there any way to change that to, say, 'msg.pgp' to see if it makes his mailer happy? I didn't see anything in the FM like pgp_attachment_filename... thanks! eric > > > % > % Thanks! > > HTH & HAND > > > % > % eric > > > :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! > The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. > Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* >
Re: multiple mailboxes for mailing lists?
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:30:30AM +0100 or thereabouts, Telsa Gwynne wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:36:52PM -0500 or thereabouts, Gary wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:14:22PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alex Farber wrote: > > Alex, One of the best procmails / muttrc's that I have seen for the > > newbieis from Telsa on her webpage. You can find it off of the > > Mutt.org site. She spent a lot of time commenting on every aspect, > > and when I first started out using Mutt, I was able to pick up things > > very quickly by seeing what she had written -- how it all fit > > together. > Thank you so much! That's how I hoped it would work :) > > Beware: it is for Mutt-1.0 and all the mailing list stuff will > break for Mutt-1.2. There is a README on the mutt.org site about > moving from 1.0 to 1.2. Eventually I shall move myself, and I > shall put a "what this looks like for 1.2" version there. > http://www.linux.org.uk/~telsa/BitsAndPieces/cave.html > > Telsa > > PS If you copy it, the other default you will want to change from > mine is the printer stuff. "lpr" is much more likely than "lpr -P lp0" > for most people. Yep, I found that out. Telsa, just wanted to thank you. Your work has helped me tremendously, and if it wasn't for your instruction and detailed commenting on the "paperwork" side, and Glyn's Millington's immense effort in personal time and help on setting me up file wise, when I was a complete newbie altogether, I would have never started using Mutt. I now am extremely comfortable with it and have made numerous personalized macros, additions, etc. You gave me an excellent track to run on. -- Best regards, Gary Today's thought: I believe the only time the world beats a path to my door is when I'm in the bathroom.
Re: Mail text as attachments?
Eric, et al -- ...and then Eric Osborne said... % % > Here's where I'm confused. The only broken mailers I know in this % > context are Eudora and Outlook (though TheBat! may qualify, and I'm Aha -- got it on the first guess, it seems :-) ... % -- % Not exactly, My mailer handles encrypted data that's embedded as the % body of the email fine. The problem is when the data comes as an ... % --- % % So what I'd really like to do is either % * _not_ treat pgp messages as attachments, or This is easy; whip up a default send-hook that sets pgp_create_traditional to false and another for your recipient (or group of recipients) that sets it to true, and they'll stop bothering you. % * find some way to put a .pgp extension on an attachment name ... % Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted % Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.asc" ... % % ...so it's already called 'msg.asc'. Is there any way to change that % to, say, 'msg.pgp' to see if it makes his mailer happy? I didn't see % anything in the FM like pgp_attachment_filename... You could probably patch the sources and recompile :-) I might try that myself if that's all it takes to get Eudora to handle PGP/MIME email... % % > % Thanks! % > % > HTH & HAND :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Documentation bug regarding `date_format'?
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 09:45:57AM -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
> date_format DOES affect %d in the index, IFF you're actually using %d.
> Probably you're using %{} instead. Please check you actual index_format
> closely. Note the default index_format does not use %d.
Fcsk! My apologies, yes, I'd fallen foul of this. That is, I'd changed my
`index_format' to ensure that it used %d but I had a folder hook that was
pulling in another file that re-defined. Hence my confusion about the
documentation.
Thanks for the heads-up.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
index_format date
I'd like to re-format my "index_format" date from "Aug 21" to "Aug 21 08:45:09" My current index_format, before changing it, looks like set index_format="%3C%?M?+& ?%Z %[%b %d] %-16.16F [%-9.9O] %-33.33s (%4l) So I left that as it is because it contains %[%b %d] which should contain the date (currently displaying "Aug 21", and I uncommented the "date_format" - it now looks like this set date_format="!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z" I left it that just because I wanted to see how it looked, but low-and-behold the date is still displayed as "Aug 21". What am I doing wrong/not doing right? TIA. -- Hardy Merrill Mission Critical Linux, LLC http://www.missioncriticallinux.com
Re: index_format date
On Monday, 21 August 2000 at 10:55, Hardy Merrill wrote: > I'd like to re-format my "index_format" date > > from "Aug 21" > to "Aug 21 08:45:09" > > My current index_format, before changing it, looks like > set index_format="%3C%?M?+& ?%Z %[%b %d] %-16.16F [%-9.9O] %-33.33s (%4l) > > So I left that as it is because it contains %[%b %d] which should > contain the date (currently displaying "Aug 21", > > and I uncommented the "date_format" - it now looks like this >set date_format="!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z" > > I left it that just because I wanted to see how it looked, > but low-and-behold the date is still displayed as "Aug 21". > > What am I doing wrong/not doing right? as long as I'm here anyway... %[] doesn't use date_format. If you want to use date_format, change %[%b %d] to %d. -- Don't make Godzilla mad! PGP signature
Re: Strategies for archiving mails
+ Chris Gushue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm using a combination of procmail and a couple shell scripts for mail > sorting and archiving. Procmail sorts things into monthly directories such > as ~/mail/2000/08 with various mail folders (Maildir-style) in there. I like the idea of hierarchic mail sorting into subdirectories. I think it works with mbox mail folders as well? > scripts at http://mutt.lazygenes.net - a lot of which was helped along by I will take a look at the scripts. Thank you for information. Kai. -- + mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] + http://www.tu-ilmenau.de/~bond/
lbdbq error message.
Dear sirs, esteemed list!
This might be slightly OT, but I don't think there's a better place to
ask.
I just upgraded lbdb from 0.15.1 (debian package) to 0.19.9
(self compiled), and when I tested it I got:
_
morten@pc89225:~$ lbdbq
/usr/local/bin/lbdbq: line 8: 3754 Aborted $GPG --list-keys
--with-colons "$@" 2>/dev/null
3755 Done(1) | grep '^\(pub\|uid\):\([^:]*:\)\{8,8\}[^<>:]*
<[^<>@: ]*@[^<>@:
]*>[^<>@:]*:'
3756 Done| sed -e 's/^\([^:]*:\)\{9,9\}\([^<:]*\)
<\([^>:]*\)>.*:.*$/\3 \2 (GnuPG)/'
3757 Done| sed -e 's/ \([^]\{27,27\}\)[^ ]* /\1...
/'
__
... and after these lines all of my data base is printed, but that's as
it should be.
Now, I have no idea what it means, the sed and grep lines looks like
semirandom chars to me (it's regexp's, right?), and I think it's GnuGP
that's complaining here, but I'm not sure.
So ... any ideas, RTFM's, requests for more info ... ?
Kind regards
Morten
--
UNIX, reach out and grep someone
Re: mixmaster support in mutt
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:53PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not > support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to > not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt > support? Good question. Unfortunately I don't know. > I also failed to get either version of mixmaster to actually work > outside mutt. This is of course off topic for the mutt list, but I will > outline my problems and ask people to e-mail me rather than continue to > discuss these non-mutt problems on the list. Of course the mutt topics > above can be discussed on the list. There is an egroups Mixmaster list. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would welcome any help by e-mail to these mixmaster questions and any > discussion on the list about the future of mixmaster support in mutt. > Thomas says he is very busy and no longer uses mixmaster, so I guess it > is up to us if we want to progress it. It might be helpful to others to carry on any non-Mutt-related Mixmaster discussion on the above list rather than via private mail. Messages are archived there, and there is a search capability. I too, am interested in Mutt support for Mixmaster. Regards, -rex
Re: index_format date
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:55:09 -0400, Hardy Merrill wrote:
> I'd like to re-format my "index_format" date
>
> from "Aug 21"
> to "Aug 21 08:45:09"
>
> My current index_format, before changing it, looks like
> set index_format="%3C%?M?+& ?%Z %[%b %d] %-16.16F [%-9.9O] %-33.33s (%4l)
>
> So I left that as it is because it contains %[%b %d] which should
> contain the date (currently displaying "Aug 21",
Exactly.
> and I uncommented the "date_format" - it now looks like this
>set date_format="!%a, %b %d, %Y at %I:%M:%S%p %Z"
>
> I left it that just because I wanted to see how it looked,
> but low-and-behold the date is still displayed as "Aug 21".
>
> What am I doing wrong/not doing right?
Your index_format doesn't use date_format. The codes inside
"%[some codes]" is formatted by C-library function strftime().
Try e.g. "man strftime" to see the available formatting codes for
strftime().
You may want to change "%[%b %d]" to "%[%b %d %H:%M:%S]".
The date_format string is also formatted by strftime(), but it is
only used where there is a %d or %D in the index_format (%d or %D
inside %[...], %{...}, %(...), or %<...> constructs don't count
here).
--
Byrial
http://home.worldonline.dk/~byrial/
Re: lbdbq error message.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:12:53PM +0200, Morten Liebach wrote:
> I just upgraded lbdb from 0.15.1 (debian package) to 0.19.9 (self
> compiled), and when I tested it I got: _
>
> morten@pc89225:~$ lbdbq
> /usr/local/bin/lbdbq: line 8: 3754 Aborted $GPG --list-keys
>--with-colons "$@" 2>/dev/null
> 3755 Done(1) | grep '^\(pub\|uid\):\([^:]*:\)\{8,8\}[^<>:]*
><[^<>@: ]*@[^<>@:
> ]*>[^<>@:]*:'
> 3756 Done| sed -e 's/^\([^:]*:\)\{9,9\}\([^<:]*\)
><\([^>:]*\)>.*:.*$/\3 \2 (GnuPG)/'
> 3757 Done| sed -e 's/ \([^]\{27,27\}\)[^ ]*
>/\1... /'
> __
>
> ... and after these lines all of my data base is printed, but that's as it
> should be.
What happens if you run the GPG query by hand? For example:
,
| gpg --list-keys --with-colons
`
do you get output?
Also, have a look at m_gpg (probably in /usr/local/lib/m_gpg). Is the GPG
variable set correctly?
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | muttrc2html - muttrc -> HTML utility
Free software, including| muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
