Była godzina 12:46:39 w poniedziałek 25 wrzesień, gdy do autobusu wsiadł kanar
i wrzasnął:"Suresh Ramasubramanian!!! Bilecik do kontroli!!!" A on(a) na to:
>> (what a grammar construction ;). Walking further, the pop3 support
>> should give ability to plug in procmail somewhere to sort messa
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 06:06:05PM +0200, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
>
> BTW. Anyone knows any other than 'serialmail' way to use qmail over
> dialup (dynamic IP)
>
Yes, there's a patch written by a qmail user that I used to use which
makes qmail via a dial-up connection *much* easier. It's called
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 08:45:56PM +0200, Wouter Verheijen wrote:
> Well, a GUI does have some advantages:
> - One can read HTML-mail... OK, people should not be sending html, but
> really a lot of (Microsoft)-users, do. It would be quite nice to view
> the layout they intended with fonts inline i
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 05:39:59PM +0300, Mikko H?nninen wrote:
> Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
> > > Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
> > > (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
> > > any decade now...)
> >
Lukasz Stelmach proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> But there is one major problem that none of well known text-based (of
> coures that is not the matter of UI) mailreaders does not solve.
> Spooling. When i use either mutt, pine or simple mail first i have to
Masqmail / Nullmailer are your friend
Była godzina 12:44:04 w sobota 23 wrzesień, gdy do autobusu wsiadł kanar
i wrzasnął:"David Champion!!! Bilecik do kontroli!!!" A on(a) na to:
> A few years ago, I was tired of my frustrations with MH, elm, and
> Columbia mm, and I hated Pine.
[...]
> I was in the planning stages, and had
As the author points out:
"All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less."
If you want something better, make it.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:00:01PM -0700, Myrddin muttered:
| Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
| > Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.
Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
> Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.
Not to nitpick, but no. mutt does not need a GUI. It'd probably be more
accurate to say that you -want- a GUI for mutt. To this day, mutt is easily
the most powerful, configurable, fast
Well, a GUI does have some advantages:
- One can read HTML-mail... OK, people should not be sending html, but
really a lot of (Microsoft)-users, do. It would be quite nice to view
the layout they intended with fonts inline images.
- The resolution is usally much more, so you can have more text on
On 2000.09.23, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jens Askengren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A GUI-mutt could be implemented by separating mutt into a backend and
> several frontends (curses, X11, etc). The frontend could be selected at
> compiletime, or loaded as a plugin/dll/.so-lib at runtim
Hi,
At 6:24 AM EDT on September 23 Jens Askengren sent off:
>
> While I was replying to Peter Jaques question about a catchup command,
> another reply was already posted to the list. I couldn't possibly know
> that, because it's impossible to browse the mailboxes and
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:19:17AM -0400, David T-G wrote:
> ... and my fear is that, once such a change were made, the text-only
> mutt would suffer if not go away entirely. That would really suck
> for me, for instance, since I do my mail over an ssh vt100
> connection (and pround of it! :-)
Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
> > Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
> > (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
> > any decade now...)
>
> There are a lot of GUI clients out there for X11. But unfortunately, mo
Jens --
...and then Jens Askengren said...
%
% Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI. I know that some of you might
Gaack! *sputter* *wheeze* cough cough
'scuse me
% want to edit your .procmailrc after reading this post. Please do so, but
% read this first =)
Hey, if this is any indi
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 04:02:44PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
> > Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.
>
> Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
> (Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of
Jens Askengren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 23 Sep 2000:
> Yes, I'm suggesting that mutt needs a GUI.
Last time I asked about this, I was told to check out "Balsa".
(Which I haven't yet done, though it's on my list of things to do
any decade now...)
Regards,
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, ak
While I was replying to Peter Jaques question about a catchup command,
another reply was already posted to the list. I couldn't possibly know
that, because it's impossible to browse the mailboxes and compose at the
same time. This is quite annoying, and a good reasons to code a GUI
thanks y'all!
peter
--
Peter Jaques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://cs.oberlin.edu/~pjaques
klezmer&balkan&turkish clarinet; free food&shelter; peace pilgrim
PGP signature
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:33:36AM -0700, Peter Jaques wrote:
> i'm looking for some command that will mark all messages in a current
> mailbox as being read, without having to actually read them.
You might want a macro like this:
macro index m "~A\
N\
~A"
Repl
On 2000.09.23, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Byrial Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tag all messages, mark the tagged messages read, and finally untag
> them. Can be bound to macro if you like, for example:
>
> macro index R "T~A;WN;t" "Mark all messages read"
This is correct, of cour
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 01:33:36 -0700, Peter Jaques wrote:
> i'm looking for some command that will mark all messages in a current
> mailbox as being read, without having to actually read them. sort of like
> ^R but for an entire mailbox (& not dependent on threading). is there a
> such?
Tag all
On 2000.09.23, in <2923013336.A18320@sol>,
"Peter Jaques" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm looking for some command that will mark all messages in a current
> mailbox as being read, without having to actually read them. sort of like
> ^R but for an entire mailbox (& not dependent on th
i'm looking for some command that will mark all messages in a current
mailbox as being read, without having to actually read them. sort of like
^R but for an entire mailbox (& not dependent on threading). is there a
such?
thanks
peter
PGP signature
On Mon, Jul 17 2000, at 11:28 +0200, Kai Weber wrote:
>how can I change the status of a mail from New to Read? I want to
>have a keybinding for automatic "catchup" all new messages if I see
>that they are not interessting or if I have no time to read. I know
>how to s
Kai --
...and then Kai Weber said...
% Hi,
%
% how can I change the status of a mail from New to Read? I want to have a
% keybinding for automatic "catchup" all new messages if I see that they are
% not interessting or if I have no time to read.
There are two flags that might do wha
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 11:28:19AM +0200, Kai Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how can I change the status of a mail from New to Read? I want to have a
> keybinding for automatic "catchup" all new messages if I see that they are
> not interessting or if I have no time to read.
Hi,
how can I change the status of a mail from New to Read? I want to have a
keybinding for automatic "catchup" all new messages if I see that they are
not interessting or if I have no time to read.
I know how to select new messages but do not find a switch for the
"read-statu
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 01:43:24PM -0500, Vikas Agnihotri wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 11:25:50PM -0600, Martin Julian DeMello wrote:
>
> > Is there any way to mark all posts in a mailbox read, without
> > entering the box?
>
> No. After you enter the folder though, you can do it quite easil
1999-03-03-19:15:13 David Shaw:
> 1999-03-03-05:25:50 Martin Julian DeMello:
> > Is there any way to mark all posts in a mailbox read, without entering the
> > box?
>
> Without entering the box? Here's how to do it without even running mutt :)
I thought about posting essentially that, only for M
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 11:25:50PM -0600, Martin Julian DeMello wrote:
> Is there any way to mark all posts in a mailbox read, without entering the
> box?
Without entering the box? Here's how to do it without even running mutt
:)
Mark everything old:
cat the_mailbox_name | formail -s formail -
Is there any way to mark all posts in a mailbox read, without entering the
box?
m.
31 matches
Mail list logo
