Lars Hecking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 1999:
> While this recipe is on the procmailex man page, a recipe to
> save duplicates into a different folder is a lot safer (like
> the one further down in procmailex(5)).
There's also some specialised scripts/programs (made with perl) th
Carrie Jamrogowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 1999:
> Is there a way to get the message index to show the author's name instead
> of the list name?
The default $index_format is "%4C %Z %{%b %d} %-15.15L (%4l) %s"
Change the %-15.15L to %-15.15F (or possibly lower-case f, if y
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 1999:
> However it didn't show
> up when I did an 'E', does that only show my wanted headers as opposed
> to all of them, I suppose that must be it.
No, I think you don't see it in "E" is because it's not there yet.
It gets added when the email
> A quick fix on your end, assuming you're also running procmail (a good
> assumption on this mailing list),
>
> Add the following to the front of your .procmailrc file:
>
> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
>
> This discards duplicate mails based upon the message ID header.
w?
>
> But it does... unless you mean somewhere else:
>
> X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 27 22:42:39 1999
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:40:35 +0100
> From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Please use the 'L' command to
ROTECTED]> wrote:
* Um, it does, you know:
*
* Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:40:35 +0100
* From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: Re: Please use the 'L' command to send mail
* Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL
Chris Green writes:
> Since most people on this list presumably use mutt would it be too
> much to ask that they use the 'L' command to respond to mail on the
> list. Many of the responses to my recent questions and comments have
> been sent to both the list and to me. It's no big deal but it wo
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 1999:
> Oops, yes I've found it, thanks! This message should have the
> 'Mail-followup-to:', but it *still* hasn't and I do have mutt in the
> 'subscribe' list in my .muttrc file. So what now?
It did (as was pointed out). I'm only adding the
at now?
Um, it does, you know:
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:40:35 +0100
From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Please use the 'L' command to send mail
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Ver
> 'Mail-followup-to:', but it *still* hasn't and I do have mutt in the
> 'subscribe' list in my .muttrc file. So what now?
But it does... unless you mean somewhere else:
X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 27 22:42:39 1999
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:40:35 +0100
From:
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> > You're using the unstable branch. That means that, in order to get
> > mail-followup-to set, you have to add the list to the list of
> > subscribed lists. See muttrc (5).
> >
> Is this something in addition to the 'lists' command
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-10-27 12:20:29 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > I think it should be set to do so, I looked up in the manual and it
> > says the default for 'followup_to' is 'set'. I have this list set up
> > as a list in my .muttrc file,
On 1999-10-27 12:20:29 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> I think it should be set to do so, I looked up in the manual and it
> says the default for 'followup_to' is 'set'. I have this list set up
> as a list in my .muttrc file, so as I understand it, I should already
> be setting Mail-Followup-To: sho
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 11:32:54AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-10-27 08:51:22 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > Since most people on this list presumably use mutt would it be too
> > much to ask that they use the 'L' command to respond to mail on the
> > list. Many of the responses to
On 1999-10-27 12:24:46 +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
>> Well, you could also just let your instance of mutt generate
>> Mail-Followup-To headers... ;-)
> Which btw is not in the latest draft of Common Internet Message
> Header Fields.
That's bad news. When implemented properly, it's really nic
On 1999-10-27 11:32:54 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-10-27 08:51:22 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > Since most people on this list presumably use mutt would it be too
> > much to ask that they use the 'L' command to respond to mail on the
> > list. Many of the responses to my recent qu
On 1999-10-27 08:51:22 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> Since most people on this list presumably use mutt would it be too
> much to ask that they use the 'L' command to respond to mail on the
> list. Many of the responses to my recent questions and comments
> have been sent to both the list and to m
Since most people on this list presumably use mutt would it be too
much to ask that they use the 'L' command to respond to mail on the
list. Many of the responses to my recent questions and comments have
been sent to both the list and to me. It's no big deal but it would
make for a little less m
18 matches
Mail list logo
