Ren? Clerc wrote:
> * Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [30-11-2001 13:47]:
>
> | macro index c =
> | But then you lose the (partially useful) functionality of the
> | last active folder being offered by mutt as the default.
> |
> | Is there something wrong with this proposal?
>
> At first it sou
Jussi Ekholm wrote:
>
> So, is it really necessary to create ~/.forward in order to use
> Procmail, or is it just Exim, who notices if there's Procmail in use?
if exim uses procmail as its LDA, no .forward is needed - your
.procmailrc is read already. since you don't need a .forward, my guess
i
David Champion wrote:
> "Dairy Wall Limey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[responding on list again in case someone else has any ideas]
> > i'm sorry if i'm missing something obvious, but since installing 1.3.24,
> > the trees that indicate threads
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> I've just released the next mutt beta, version 1.3.24i.
>
> Some of the more interesting changes against mutt-1.3.23i:
>
> - New and improved threading code from Daniel Eisenbud. See also
> $duplicate_threads, $hide_missing, $thread_received.
i'm sorry if i'm missin
Thomas Hurst wrote:
> * Samuel Padgett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Thomas Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I have 'r' rebound to list-reply for all my mailing lists (bar one
> > > broken one). Nice having a MUA this flexible, means all the lists
> > > that use (or don't use) Reply-To:
Thorsten Haude wrote:
> Yeah, the basic brain-dead-mailer-problem and its reply-to-munging or
> group-reply answer. Fortunately, there's Mutt. I use group-reply about
> once a year.
> I don't know why I didn't get it the first time.
>
> Dairy, you could set the Reply-To header, this is more wide
what other MTAs honor Mail-Followup-To, and is there a patch for pine to
make it do this? i couldn't find any patches online for this. i don't
use pine, but a number of colleagues do (and many use other, even more
brain-dead MUAs). given that my chances of converting many of them are
slim, is t
Reed Lai wrote:
> > > Seniors,
> > >
> > > As I remember, the signature delimiter "--" in mail body is a
> > "-- "
>
> Ah... I can not understand your answer...
> I mean... my question is that the "--" is mentioned in which RFC
> document?
he didn't answ
Thomas Hurst wrote:
> * Samuel Padgett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > So the advantage of Maildir is speed, and the disadvantage is that
> > it eats inodes for breakfast?
>
> I was under the impression Maildir was extremely slow, just without
> locking issues, making it a good option for pop3
