On 2009-04-23_23:17:58, Chris G wrote:
> I know mutt detects new mail in mbox format by comparing the last
> access time with the modification time of the file. However I can't
> find anywhere that tells me the exact logic.
>
> In particular if the last access time is the *same* as the
> modifica
On 23Apr2009 18:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
| Of course, personally, I think recording access time (thereby turning
| every disk access into a disk write) is a waste of my computer's time,
| so I usually mount my filesystems with the "noatime" option.
Yes. On more modern UNIX systems the "relatime"
you want multiple nick names? Or just multiple addresses?
1) if multiple nick names, you may do like this:
alias nick_1 longname
alias nick_2 nick_1
alias nick_3 nick_1
...
2) if just multiple addresses
alias nick_1 longname , address_2, adess_3,...,address_n
Best Wishes :-)
On
Something like:
alias wu \"Wu, Yue\"
It's not so convenient for creating more than one nick for one man.
--
Hi,
Wu, Yue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, April 23 at 11:17 PM, quoth Chris G:
> I know mutt detects new mail in mbox format by comparing the last
> access time with the modification time of the file. However I can't
> find anywhere that tells me the exact logic.
>
> In particu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, April 23 at 10:58 PM, quoth Chris G:
>> > vile*Apr 23 21:15 4.1K
>> > xm-l Apr 23 22:15 6.5K
>> >
>> >
>> >What do those asterisks indicate?
>>
>> Hmm, not sure.
I know mutt detects new mail in mbox format by comparing the last
access time with the modification time of the file. However I can't
find anywhere that tells me the exact logic.
In particular if the last access time is the *same* as the
modification time does mutt treat the mailbox as having new
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:43:45PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23 at 10:32 PM, quoth Chris G:
> >-- Mutt: Directory [=Li], File mask: !^\.[^.]
> >-> ../ Apr 23 21:45 4.0K
> > alug*Apr 23 21:15 4.2K
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, April 23 at 10:32 PM, quoth Chris G:
>-- Mutt: Directory [=Li], File mask: !^\.[^.]
>-> ../ Apr 23 21:45 4.0K
> alug*Apr 23 21:15 4.2K
> digikam*
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:32:02PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> Here's an example of what I mean:-
>
> -- Mutt: Directory [=Li], File mask: !^\.[^.]
> -> ../ Apr 23 21:45 4.0K
> alug*Apr 23 21:15 4.2K
> digikam*
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23 at 09:54 PM, quoth Chris G:
> >I'm sure I should be able to find this in the documentation somewhere
> >but finding "*" isn't very productive! :-)
> >
> >So, what does an asterisk against a mailbox name mean?
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, April 23 at 09:54 PM, quoth Chris G:
>I'm sure I should be able to find this in the documentation somewhere
>but finding "*" isn't very productive! :-)
>
>So, what does an asterisk against a mailbox name mean?
Against?
... in what conte
I'm sure I should be able to find this in the documentation somewhere
but finding "*" isn't very productive! :-)
So, what does an asterisk against a mailbox name mean?
--
Chris Green
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, April 23 at 01:42 PM, quoth Christian Ebert:
>> I have no feedback from others about it whether it works. Given the
>> current design of hcache, the patch does some dangerous things
>> (i.e. it might crash mutt, return wrong information,
Hi Michelle!
On Do, 23 Apr 2009, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> Now I can not get the regexp to thread this pigs:
What exactly has the reply_regexp to do with threading?
>
> 117 - 2,5K 2009-01-31 16:31:35 [mc-forum] Counterfit copy of nic
> 118 - 2,0K 2009-01-31 16:43:01 [mc-foru
* Rocco Rutte on Sunday, April 19, 2009 at 16:07:28 +0200
> * Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 19 at 02:26 PM, quoth Rocco Rutte:
>>> The problem with hcache is (currently, without the patch attached to
>>> ticket #2942) that it's written only once when initially parsing the
>>> message. T
Hello,
I am on the Microchip Forum and have created a procmail recipe which put
the real subject (which is in the body) in the Subject: and the author
in the From:.
Now I can not get the regexp to thread this pigs:
117 - 2,5K 2009-01-31 16:31:35 [mc-forum] Counterfit copy of nic
118
17 matches
Mail list logo
