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 $GPG --list-keys
>--wi
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 10:55:09 -0400, Hardy Merrill wrote:
> I'd like to re-format my "index_format" date
>
> from "Aug 21"
> to "Aug 21 08:45:09"
>
> My current index_format, before changing it, looks like
> set index_format="%3C%?M?+& ?%Z %[%b %d] %-16.16F [%-9.9O] %-33.33s (%4l)
>
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:53PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>
> However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not
> support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to
> not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt
> suppor
Dear sirs, esteemed list!
This might be slightly OT, but I don't think there's a better place to
ask.
I just upgraded lbdb from 0.15.1 (debian package) to 0.19.9
(self compiled), and when I tested it I got:
_
morten@pc89225:~$ lbdbq
/usr/local/bin/lbdbq: line 8: 3754 Aborted
+ 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 so
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'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
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
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 encrypt
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
> 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-l
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
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 th
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 P
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 t
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:
,
|
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 opin
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
> check
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'' sequen
19 matches
Mail list logo
