Edmund,
In my first tests this worked great. My original change was after this,
trying to 'eat up' the next input. But that didn't work nicely. This,
however seems to do what I was looking for just fine.
Thanks,
Kurt
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:16:13PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> [EMAI
On Friday, 14 January 2000 at 18:07, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> > (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> > (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> > client with e.g. fetchmail feeding pro
2000-01-14-11:07:57 Mikko Hänninen:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> > (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> > (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> > client with e.g. fetchmail feeding procmail (perhaps via
> >
2000-01-13-18:37:20 Matthew Hawkins:
> On 2000-01-13 12:54:07 -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > But this isn't a limitation of the implementation, it's a limit of
> > the goal specified. Better not to go there.
>
> A limitation of the goal... that's a new one to me!
If you specify your goals as:
Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And if he still thinks it's too hard, he can always use
> "dotconfigurator". I don't have it's URL here, but it wouldn't be hard
> to find it.
I don't know if it was The Dotfile Generator you thought of. The URL of this
program is here: http://www.imada.o
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A limitation of the goal... that's a new one to me!
>
> If you specify your goals as:
>
> (1) You don't have a login on the mail server, and so can't
> filter at delivery with procmail/maildrop/mailagent/...;
> (2) You only access the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think if there was an option which would cause commands on tagged
> messages (initiated with ;) to simply do nothing if there was no tagged
> message, then it might work. I had a go at changing this behaviour in
> the source, but failed. (No wonder, C is
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> client with e.g. fetchmail feeding procmail (perhaps via
> local MTA);
>
> then you have
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:18:21PM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 2000-01-12 16:08:06 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. can
> >
> > Mutt doesn't do this. Setup something like procmail.
>
> however there's at least one val
Jeffrey L . Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2000:
> If you find procmail too hard to use, you might also look at maildrop.
> Another plus is that it works with Maildir mailboxes without patches.
The latest version of procmail (out a month or few ago) has native
support for maildir
On 2000-01-13 11:23:37 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> Matthew Hawkins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Actually I think you can use folder-hook to implement a poor-man's
> > procmail. Personally, I use procmail :)
>
> This would work, but only to sort when you first entered a folder. It
> wouldn'
On 2000-01-13 12:54:07 -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-01-13-12:50:49 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> > Nice, but some people want to leave mail on the server so that
> > they can access it from other places as well.
Not only that, take a corporate situation where the mail could be
sensitive - you don'
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:23:37AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>
> I understand procmail doesn't go with IMAP at this point. But that doesn't
> mean it makes sense for Mutt to do it. It's still the MDAs job to deliver
> mail. As someone else mentioned, something should be written for IMAP to
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:51:17PM -0500, Scott V. McGuire wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:29:21PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > 2000-01-13-14:27:28 Scott V. McGuire:
> > > Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It
> > > seems like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail)
David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott V. McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It seems
> > like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single user system
> > when all I need is a program to look like sendmail but
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 01:54:30PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> Scott V. McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It seems
> > like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single user system
> > when all I need is a program to l
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 05:15:01PM +0300, Sergei Kolobov wrote:
> Mikko H?nninen wrote:
> > Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> > > Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
> > > it's severly anoying.
> > ...
> > > yes procmail is powerfull, bu
Scott V. McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It seems
> like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single user system
> when all I need is a program to look like sendmail but immediately
> send mail to my isp's smtp server.
Wh
Scott V. McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It seems
> like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single user system
> when all I need is a program to look like sendmail but immediately
> send mail to my isp's smtp server.
T
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:29:21PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-01-13-14:27:28 Scott V. McGuire:
> > Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It
> > seems like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single
> > user system when all I need is a program to look like sen
2000-01-13-14:27:28 Scott V. McGuire:
> Any ideas on not using a full blown MTA for outgoing mail? It
> seems like overkill to run sendmail (or even qmail) on a single
> user system when all I need is a program to look like sendmail but
> immediately send mail to my isp's smtp server.
That's eas
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:59:31PM -0600, Jeffrey L . Taylor wrote:
> I bypass the MTA for incoming mail. I've added
>
> mda "/usr/local/bin/maildrop -f %F"
>
> to my .fetchmailrc file for each POP mailbox. I don't know if this
> works with procmail.
>
> HTH,
> Jeffrey
>
Any ideas on not
I bypass the MTA for incoming mail. I've added
mda "/usr/local/bin/maildrop -f %F"
to my .fetchmailrc file for each POP mailbox. I don't know if this
works with procmail.
HTH,
Jeffrey
Quoting Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2000-01-13-07:18:21 Matthew Hawkins:
> > There seems to be a
2000-01-13-12:50:49 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> Nice, but some people want to leave mail on the server so that
> they can access it from other places as well.
Sure. Are those same people the same ones who are also asking for
filtering into different folders, and who cannot run procmail on
their serve
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Try running procmail on a mail server you don't have an account on
> > and your mailbox isn't actually physically owned by you anyway :)
>
> I have email from a _lot_ of places coming in to my mail server.
>
> Then I have fetchmail pull it down from there.
Matthew Hawkins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On 2000-01-12 16:08:06 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > > I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> > > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. can
> >
> > Mutt doesn't do this. Setup so
2000-01-13-07:18:21 Matthew Hawkins:
> There seems to be a lot of detractors to the requested
> functionality, however there's at least one valid case that mutt
> can be in where the functionality is quite useful. This is when
> the spoolfile is an IMAP INBOX folder. That folder could get mail
>
If you find procmail too hard to use, you might also look at maildrop.
Another plus is that it works with Maildir mailboxes without patches.
The filtering rules are quite readable.
HTH,
Jeffrey
Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> > Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
> > it's severly anoying.
> ...
> > yes procmail is powerfull, but its far too much of a
> > hassle for just setting up a simple filter,
>
Mikko, et al --
...and then Mikko Hänninen said...
% Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
% > I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
% > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns.
%
% Mutt doesn't do this, it'
Nick --
...and then Nick Jennings said...
%
% there a reason why this is something that is continuously not a feature in
% UNIX mail clients? yes procmail is powerfull, but its far too much of a
Simple: in the UNIX world, little tools that do a few things, or just one
thing, *very*well* get put
Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2000:
> There seems to be a lot of detractors to the requested functionality,
> however there's at least one valid case that mutt can be in where the
> functionality is quite useful. This is when the spoolfile is an IMAP
> INBOX folder.
To
On 2000-01-12 16:08:06 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. can
>
> Mutt doesn't do this. Setup something like procmail.
Actually I think you can use
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 03:28:30PM -0800, Nick Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:56:44PM -0800, Shawn D. McPeek wrote:
> >
> > It's not a feature because it's not the job of a mail client to deliver
> > mail. There are a lot of things mail clients don't do - delivering mail
> > is one
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:56:44PM -0800, Shawn D. McPeek wrote:
>
> :>
> :> newmail-hook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) +mutt-users-mail
>
> What's so hard about:
>
> :0:
> * ^Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mutt-users-mail
>
> I really don't think that was too hard.
And if he still thinks it's too hard,
Nick Jennings schrieb:
>Since I started using Mutt, I stopped developing this mail
>client, but now I might start again, or maybe add this feature to mutt, is
>there a reason why this is something that is continuously not a feature in
>UNIX mail clients? yes procmail is powerfull, but its far too
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:56:44PM -0800, Shawn D. McPeek wrote:
>
> It's not a feature because it's not the job of a mail client to deliver
> mail. There are a lot of things mail clients don't do - delivering mail
> is one of them.
Sorting mail is not delivering it, the mail is deliver
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:59:52PM -0800, brian moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Nick Jennings wrote:
> >
> > Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
> > it's severly anoying. I think it _IS_ a mail clients job to do filtering,
> > after all,
Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
> it's severly anoying.
...
> yes procmail is powerfull, but its far too much of a
> hassle for just setting up a simple filter,
You could try maildrop instead, t
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Nick Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:20:23AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> > > I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> > > information on h
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Nick Jennings wrote:
> Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
> it's severly anoying. I think it _IS_ a mail clients job to do filtering,
> after all, it checks the /var/spool/mail/ for new mail and drops
> in in your inbox
Previously, Nick Jennings wrote:
:>
:> Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but
:> it's severly anoying. I think it _IS_ a mail clients job to do filtering,
:> after all, it checks the /var/spool/mail/ for new mail and drops
:> in in your inbox, if it drops it in the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:20:23AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> > I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns.
>
> Mutt doesn't
Nick Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000:
> I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns.
Mutt doesn't do this, it's not Mutt's job. You need to use a mail
filtering tool such
Nick Jennings [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Hello, new to mutt and due to the high volume of messages on this list I
> have bumped the priority of this question up to the top.
Huh?
> I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
> information on how to get new mail p
Hello, new to mutt and due to the high volume of messages on this list I
have bumped the priority of this question up to the top.
I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific
information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. can
someone provide s
46 matches
Mail list logo
