Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Yeah, but without even invoking find:
>
> rmdir dir/new dir/tmp dir/cur dir \
> || mkdir -p dir/new dir/tmp dir/cur
>
> Robust, safe, trivial.
Hooray for simplicity. :)
> People always seem to forget that rmdir is perfectly safe, in that
> it won't remove empty direct
On 06Dec2007 21:15, A Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >> chmod a-w dir/new
| > >> if [ `find dir -type f` ] ; then
| > >
| > > You have to do something like this instead:
| [snip other responses]
|
| Perhaps I've misunderstood the reason for doing this, but I would just
| ask find to
I needed to empty some subdirectories and this is what I did:
du test
4 test/cur
4 test/tmp
4 test/new
16 test
Nothing in the test directory, so I deleted it.
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:28:26PM +, Chris G wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:15:10PM +, A Darren Dun
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:51:44PM +0100, Francesco Ciattaglia wrote:
> * Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06.12.07 21:31]:
> > Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I
> > was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have
> > no intention
Alle giovedì 6 dicembre 2007, Kyle Wheeler ha scritto:
> > But when I controll in "inbox" after the delivering of email,
>
> When you control in "inbox"? I don't understand what you're talking
> about.
I mean that, after receiving the email, it stays in "inbox".
In the header of this (seceived) ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 11:35 PM, quoth Mauro Sacchetto:
>> If you use this hook instead:
>>
>> send-hook '~t @debian$' 'my_hdr From: Mutt User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
>>
>> ...then it WILL match all three examples I listed above, but will NOT
>
Alle giovedì 6 dicembre 2007, Kyle Wheeler ha scritto:
> Yes. When you use the ^ in your pattern, you're telling it to match
> the beginning of the address (the $ at the end tells it to match the
> end of the address). Thus [EMAIL PROTECTED] will ONLY match "@debian" and
> nothing else---it will no
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:15:10PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> > >> chmod a-w dir/new
> > >> if [ `find dir -type f` ] ; then
> > >
> > > You have to do something like this instead:
> [snip other responses]
>
> Perhaps I've misunderstood the reason for doing this, but I would just
> ask find t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 10:36 PM, quoth Mauro Sacchetto:
> Alle giovedì 6 dicembre 2007, Rado S ha scritto:
>>> I've an address for outgoing mail (with my provider's domain) and
>>> a local one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). When I send local mail, in the h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 09:15 PM, quoth A Darren Dunham:
> Perhaps I've misunderstood the reason for doing this, but I would
> just ask find to do a rmdir, and let it fail if the directory isn't
> empty.
>
> find dir -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
Alle giovedì 6 dicembre 2007, Rado S ha scritto:
> > I've an address for outgoing mail (with my provider's domain) and
> > a local one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). When I send local mail, in the header
> > I fond always, as "From" field, the external address. There is a
> > way to tell Mutt to use the exte
> >> chmod a-w dir/new
> >> if [ `find dir -type f` ] ; then
> >
> > You have to do something like this instead:
[snip other responses]
Perhaps I've misunderstood the reason for doing this, but I would just
ask find to do a rmdir, and let it fail if the directory isn't empty.
find dir -depth -typ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 03:31 PM, quoth Paul Hoffman:
>Or using backticks:
>
>if [ "`find dir -type f`" ]; then
>
>I don't know if that's any more portable, though.
Backticks aren't any more portable, I don't think... but it doesn't
matter to
* Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06.12.07 21:31]:
> Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I
> was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have
> no intention of ever using it again. The support is for a very old
> version of Mixmaster a
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:47:53AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6 at 11:40 AM, quoth Paul Hoffman:
> >> chmod a-w dir/new
> >> if [ `find dir -type f` ] ; then
> >
> > You have to do something like this instead:
> >
> > found=`find dir -type f`
> > if -n "$found" ; then
> >
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:40:04AM -0500, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:03:20AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 6 at 04:46 PM, quoth Rado S:
> > >=- Chris G wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 13:03:13 + -=
> > >
> > >> What's a reliable way of removing empty mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 11:40 AM, quoth Paul Hoffman:
>> chmod a-w dir/new
>> if [ `find dir -type f` ] ; then
>
> You have to do something like this instead:
>
> found=`find dir -type f`
> if -n "$found" ; then
>
> At least on my system (Mac OS X
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:03:20AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6 at 04:46 PM, quoth Rado S:
> >=- Chris G wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 13:03:13 + -=
> >
> >> What's a reliable way of removing empty maildirs?
> >> Presumably it's possible but you'd have to follow some protoc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, December 6 at 04:46 PM, quoth Rado S:
>=- Chris G wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 13:03:13 + -=
>
>> What's a reliable way of removing empty maildirs?
>> Presumably it's possible but you'd have to follow some protocol that
>> wouldn't inter
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 04:46:20PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> =- Chris G wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 13:03:13 + -=
>
> > What's a reliable way of removing empty maildirs?
> > Presumably it's possible but you'd have to follow some protocol that
> > wouldn't interfere with the proper writing of messag
=- Mauro Sacchetto wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 14:16:02 +0100 -=
> I've an address for outgoing mail (with my provider's domain) and
> a local one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). When I send local mail, in the header
> I fond always, as "From" field, the external address. There is a
> way to tell Mutt to use t
=- Chris G wrote on Thu 6.Dec'07 at 13:03:13 + -=
> What's a reliable way of removing empty maildirs?
> Presumably it's possible but you'd have to follow some protocol that
> wouldn't interfere with the proper writing of messages to the maildir.
chmod a-w dir/new
rm -rf dir
--
© Rado S. --
=- John Magolske wrote on Wed 5.Dec'07 at 20:50:00 -0800 -=
> I was ready to send this message as a question to the list when
> one last round of searching brought this answer...figured I'd send
> it anyway to maybe increase the odds of finding for others
> searching out a similar solution.
John
* Pau Amaro-Seoane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 14:15 +0100]:
> and yet I would love to get rid of the "To:" thing... I don't have a
> "From:" in my inbox... it's a word repeated unnecessary as many times
> as email I have sent... I know I have sent them, it's the SENT
> folder...
Redefine $in
I've an address for outgoing mail (with my provider's domain)
and a local one ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). When I send local mail,
in the header I fond always, as "From" field, the external
address. There is a way to tell Mutt to use the external
address only for outgoing emails and the internal one
for lo
and yet I would love to get rid of the "To:" thing... I don't have a
"From:" in my inbox... it's a word repeated unnecessary as many times
as email I have sent... I know I have sent them, it's the SENT
folder...
2007/12/6, Pau Amaro-Seoane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Why did you set default_hook and
> Why did you set default_hook and not simple_search? This is mentioned
> in the mail you are replying to.
>
> Nicolas
>
> --
> http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas
because I am preparing a big move to another country and I didn't look
carefully?
my excuses, my fault
thanks a lot
Pau
What's a reliable way of removing empty maildirs?
Presumably it's possible but you'd have to follow some protocol that
wouldn't interfere with the proper writing of messages to the maildir.
Or is it simply not possible, in which case the wonderful concept of
maildir not needing file locking is ra
Hi,
Segmentation fault occurs when using the < operator on command line:
~/temp>/usr/bin/mutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/bin/mutt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is used and we go through the normal(ui) mode it is seen that the mail
is sent successfully
Linux distribution is Debian testing
~/temp>mutt -v
[please do not top-post]
* Pau Amaro-Seoane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 12:41 +0100]:
> > >I think you mean $simple_search with the default "~f %s | ~s %s".
> >
> > Right! Sorry, my mistake.
>
> In any case, now I have set default_hook="(~f %s !~P) | (~P ~C %s) |
> ~s %s" in my muttrc and stil
Hi,
yes, absolutely; ~b stas does find stas
What I mean is that when I am in my inbox folder, I usually have to
look for an email from somebody; what I usually do is to look for that
somebody and then order the folder according to the sender, this way I
can quickly look for the email I was lookin
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:32:24AM +, Chris G wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:21:17AM +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> > Hi Chris!
> >
> > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007, Chris G wrote:
> >
> > > It all works pretty much the same (no change of home directory so my
> > > muttrc is the same one) exc
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:21:17AM +0100, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Hi Chris!
>
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007, Chris G wrote:
>
> > It all works pretty much the same (no change of home directory so my
> > muttrc is the same one) except that every time I send a mail message
> > mutt tells me there's new
Hi Chris!
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007, Chris G wrote:
> It all works pretty much the same (no change of home directory so my
> muttrc is the same one) except that every time I send a mail message
> mutt tells me there's new mail in my sentmail folder - true enough but
> not very helpful! It didn't do th
My shell account provided by my web hosting company has been moved
from a FreeBSD system to a much more modern Linux system. They have
installed mutt (1.5.17 I think) for use there, I was using my own
build of mutt 1.5.16 on the old BSD system.
It all works pretty much the same (no change of home
35 matches
Mail list logo
