* On 2002.07.28, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Lee J. Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaah, I thought with Mutt it was strictly backticks and the pipe
> only came into it with dgc's patch. I should've at least tried
> it out before writing. Thanks! ;)
To clarify this: variables which
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Michael Tatge wrote:
[..]
> You need to append a pipe at the end to the command. That tells mutt to
> use the output of the script.
>
> set signature="~/.signatures/my_sig|"
Aaah, I thought with Mutt it was strictly backticks and the pipe
only came into it with dgc's patch.
Lee J. Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> For some reason, I thought Mutt was capable of executing
> sigfiles or evaluting commands in backticks inside sigfiles.
> Am I mistaken? Presumably this isn't possible for security
> reasons?
You need to append a pipe at the end to the command. That t
For some reason, I thought Mutt was capable of executing
sigfiles or evaluting commands in backticks inside sigfiles.
Am I mistaken? Presumably this isn't possible for security
reasons?
Before anybody mentions it - I'm aware of dgc's piped format
string patch; I just wonder whether I'm recalling
