On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 06:08:49PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> There absolutely should be a blank line. I think though that the order
> is wrong: mutt expects that a message (i.e. a From_ line) appears at
> the old EOF marker, and that the EOF marker is on/after a blank line.
> I think that if
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33:53AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> * On 21 Mar 2013, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have this macro to archive messages:
> >
> > macro pager,index Sl "~h'Return-Path:
> > '=Archive"
> > "archive messages"
> >
> > But if no messages have been tag
* On 21 Mar 2013, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this macro to archive messages:
>
> macro pager,index Sl "~h'Return-Path:
> '=Archive" "archive
> messages"
>
> But if no messages have been tagged then fails and the
> currently hightlighted message gets archived.
>
> What is
Hi,
I have this macro to archive messages:
macro pager,index Sl "~h'Return-Path:
'=Archive" "archive
messages"
But if no messages have been tagged then fails and the
currently hightlighted message gets archived.
What is the correct way to do it?
Thanks,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:45:22AM +1100, raf wrote:
>
> the python code needs to be changed to write the "From " header, then
the
> message, then the blank line.
>
Then it appears to be a bug in the Python mailbox library code. I have
attached it here. If you look through you will see, in the mb
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:25:49AM +, James Griffin wrote:
> [- Wed 20.Mar'13 at 18:08:49 -0500 David Champion :-]
>
> > * On 20 Mar 2013, Chris Green wrote:
> > >
> > > Has the mutt handling of this changed in the last few versions?
> >
> > Not that I know of, and I doubt
[- Wed 20.Mar'13 at 18:08:49 -0500 David Champion :-]
> * On 20 Mar 2013, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > Has the mutt handling of this changed in the last few versions?
>
> Not that I know of, and I doubt it.
>
> > The python way of doing this is correct according to the RFC as fa
