* On 24 May 2015, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Are filter substitutions (example: source "list-my-mailboxes|") and backtick
> substitutions (example: source `echo foo.rc`) done through a shell
> (i.e. through system(3)) or directly (i.e. through fork(2) and exec(2))?
>
> This would make a difference wi
Are filter substitutions (example: source "list-my-mailboxes|") and backtick
substitutions (example: source `echo foo.rc`) done through a shell
(i.e. through system(3)) or directly (i.e. through fork(2) and exec(2))?
This would make a difference with shell metacharacters, such as if the
"foo" abov
On May 24, 2015 at 05:55 PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote:
Assuming notmuch is the way to go, I have looked into options for
integrating mutt and notmuch.
I see the following possibilities:
(1) mutt-kz
(2) the python script.
(3) mutt-notmuch [1] (I understand this is deprecated, see [2])
(4) notmuch-mutt
On 2015-05-24 17:55 -0400, Xu Wang wrote:
> I see the following possibilities:
> (1) mutt-kz
> (2) the python script.
> (3) mutt-notmuch [1] (I understand this is deprecated, see [2])
> (4) notmuch-mutt, which is integrated into notmuch (see [3])
> Another objective of this email is to understand
Hi Xu,
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:55:02PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote:
>
> I would prefer not to use mutt-kz because I do not like using forks in
> general. I wouldn't mind rebasing the patches on top of mutt though.
> Has anyone had success with this or do they not apply cleanly?
I use mutt-kz for a f
Dear all,
I am studying the best approach to get better searching from within
mutt. From what I understand, this involves looking for an indexer,
and the best indexer is notmuch. If I misunderstood either of the
previous points, please let me know. Note that my setup is mutt,
offlineimap, and gmai
Hi Richard,
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 04:19 AM PDT, Richard Z wrote:
RZ> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 09:58:06PM -0700, Mun wrote:
RZ> > Hi Ian,
RZ> >
RZ> > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 06:15 PM PDT, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
RZ>
RZ> > IZ> Did you have a good reason to bypass Google servers? If not, using
RZ> >
Hi David,
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:28 PM PDT, David Champion wrote:
DC> * On 23 May 2015, Mun wrote:
DC> >
DC> > Indeed. I use a send-hook to accomplish the change to "from". However,
DC> > I recently found at least one destination bounced my mail because it
DC> > detected that I didn't act
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 09:58:06PM -0700, Mun wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 06:15 PM PDT, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> IZ> Did you have a good reason to bypass Google servers? If not, using
> IZ> gmail as a relay would likely work around this.
>
> Not really. I have multiple e-mail ac
