Re: weird mail headers (was Need some help with weed and send-hook)

On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:18:44PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: >>>>> "Mikko" == Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mikko> Hello, First, there's something weird with your mail settings. Mikko> Your email had this header: Mikko>

Re: Need some help with weed and send-hook

On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 06:08:30PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > "Mikko" == Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mikko> No. Mikko> I don't understand what you're trying to do with your combination Mikko> of send-hoko and "unset weed". Is there something that setting

Need some help with weed and send-hook

I am trying to get the old weed behavior with mutt-1.1.9. Earlier I posted that I was using the following send-hook send-hook . 'unset weed' However, after I've sent a message, weed is unset and I get all the headers. I just want the headers when I am sending a message so that sc (in emacs) can

Re: Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0 (was Re: [Announce] mutt-1.1.9 is out - RELEASE CANDIDATE!)

> "Thomas" == Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Lars" == Lars Hecking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> You are transferring almost 8 MBit/s with the new mutt versions. Thomas> This looks like the bottleneck is really NFS and your Ethernet, Thomas> not mutt. Wi

Re: Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0 (was Re: [Announce] mutt-1.1.9 is out - RELEASE CANDIDATE!)

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 06:59:48PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote: > "David" == David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Eric> I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB Eric> mail file with 1451 messages in it than mutt 1.0. David> NFS? What type(s) of file

Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0 (was Re: [Announce] mutt-1.1.9 is out - RELEASE CANDIDATE!)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Thomas Roessler wrote: > "Thomas" == Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> Changes against 1.1.8 are a couple of bug-fixes. Unless someone Thomas> has some real show-stoppers, I'd consider this to be a release Thomas> candid

I liked the old "weed" behavior (was [Announce] mutt-1.1.9 ...)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Thomas Roessler wrote: > "Thomas" == Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thomas> Changes against 1.1.8 are a couple of bug-fixes. Unless someone Thomas> has some real show-stoppers, I'd consider this to be a release Thomas> candid

Mutt mailboxes command vs xbuffy

I am still having problems getting mutt (0.95.5i) to recognize my mailboxes. However my guess is that because I have xbuffy watching the mailboxes that it screwing up mutt's watching the mailboxes. Is it possible to get the two to coexist? I know it seems redundant but I do like the feature in m

Re: Annoying feature

On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 06:23:17PM -0500, David DeSimone wrote: > "David" == David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> David> Just thought it might be convenient sometimes to not have to leave David> mutt. David> So

mailboxes in muttrc doesn't seem to work

Hello, I have the following lines in my .muttrc mailboxes +Inbox +sue +hpadmin +hp_annc +veritas +globetrotter +backups mailboxes +fbackup +fetchmail +perl-ldap +mutt-users +mutt-announce +daemon mailboxes +news_post +test +tickets I'm not seeing any of the behavior described in the manual (b

Problems with long address lines

I am having problems with mutt-0.95.4i. I use an external query to return a list of addresses from LDAP. I then tag each one as I want to send the message to many people. However, the To: line seems to hit a buffer limit and doesn't get all of the addresses. Is there another/better way to send