Hi guys,
I've got Mutt configured to use two Maildir accounts, synced using
offlineimap.
This is done using folder hooks. Part of this setup is as follows:
# --- Begin
set mbox_type = Maildir
set folder = ~/.maildb
set spoolfile = +/SitePoint/INBOX
folder-hook +
=- lee wrote on Sat 3.Jul'10 at 15:12:49 +0200 -=
> > Wasted effort compared to an editor macro to add some line like
> > "please acknowledge receipt and respond ASAP".
>
> What makes you think that the recipient would bother to write an
> answer?
What's so much harder for the recipient to hit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sunday, July 4 at 01:36 PM, quoth chombee:
> My muttrc has `set imap_keepalive=450`. Maybe I should reduce the
> keepalive time even further? But 450 is already twice as often as
> the IMAP standard requires.
For what it's worth, many IMAP ser
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:11:08PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
snip
> I'm not sure how it's handled by Ubuntu (I only know Debian), but
> it looks like urlscan calls sensible-browser, which calls the
> "correct" browser. You should be able to change it with
Вск, 04 Июл 2010, chombee писал(а):
> Mutt seems to be unable to keep an IMAP connection open for long. I
> use several versions of mutt on several different computers, with
> several different IMAP accounts. In all cases, I frequently come back to
> an instance of mutt to find it saying "Mailbox c
Mutt seems to be unable to keep an IMAP connection open for long. I
use several versions of mutt on several different computers, with
several different IMAP accounts. In all cases, I frequently come back to
an instance of mutt to find it saying "Mailbox closed".
My muttrc has `set imap_keepalive=4
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 09:51:03AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * lee [07-03-10 09:13]:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> >
> > > Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
> >
> > Because of poor support, maybe :)
>
> Or, more likely, requests for features
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
>
> Either
> directly or in a wrapper script (which could even be in C, but I
> would use something faster to develop, like Shell, Perl, Python,
> ..) used in $editor. It would check the mail after you exit the
> editor, and then ask
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:12:49PM +0200, lee wrote:
>
>But if the recipient doesn't care about your mail, then how does
>adding a receipt request help?
>
>>> Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
>>
>> Because of poor supp
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:12:49PM +0200, lee wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Let me add that you just got me to the idea that a simple yes/no for a
> combination of recipients won't suffice: It would have to be
> always/once/no/never, meaning that for the combination of recipients
> in question, the requestin
Sorry :)
As I see, I was quite stupid, unfortunately.
My email should be encrypted not with my public key, of course, but
with public keys received from addressees. That's why I was suggested
to select keys (question No. 1) , and that's why I gpg has told me
that the key was already present (the
Dear colleagues,
I would be grateful if someone could confirm if I've done everything right:
a). I'm using Mutt 1.5.18 on Mac OS X 10.5.8 with gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.9
b). Here is a fragment from my .muttrc:
---
set pgp_decode_command="/opt/local/bin/gpg %?p?--passphrase-fd 0?
--no-verbose --quiet -
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:36:00PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> Not sure if this is the appropriate list for this but I couldn't find a
> urlscan list.
>
> I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 with their version of Mutt 1.5.17, urlscan
> 0.5.6, and Firefox 3.6.6 just upgraded from 3.0.x. Prior to the upgrade
13 matches
Mail list logo
