Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Yes, BUT mutt does *not* use those headers to match against the
> lists/subscribed lists for the purposes of ~l and ~u pattern
> matching. Check out pattern.c, line 1172; all it uses is h->env->to
> and h->env->cc. h->env->to is built (in parse.c) from To and
> Apparently-To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, June 20 at 03:03 PM, quoth Todd Zullinger:
>Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> Now, it's probably fair criticism if you want to say that mutt
>> should also check List-Post and/or List-ID headers (if they exist),
>> but for good or ill, it does not c
Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Now, it's probably fair criticism if you want to say that mutt
> should also check List-Post and/or List-ID headers (if they exist),
> but for good or ill, it does not currently (file a bug report).
> Other than that, though, how do you think mutt *should* identify
> messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, June 20 at 01:31 PM, quoth Omari Norman:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:04:43AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> Generally, the lists and subscribe commands just add addresses to
>> an internal list. This list is then consulted for several th
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:04:43AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Generally, the lists and subscribe commands just add addresses to an
> internal list. This list is then consulted for several things. For
> example, it is used for the ~l pattern (which, according to the
> manual, matches "messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, June 20 at 06:58 AM, quoth Omari Norman:
> According to the manual, it seems that the lists and subscribe
> commands only examine the "To:" field of incoming mail. Is that
> true?
Not in my experience. Where does it say that?
Generall
* Mike Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-18 06:45]:
> I have a few questions I was unable to find answers for in the docs/web:
> 1. How can I disable the 'L' flag in 1.3.28i? It's redundant for me
> since I already use procmail to sort my list-mail into folders.
I suppose this flag is shown i
Moin,
* christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-19 17:37]:
>When you said you are suscribed to a list you don't need to said that
>this is a list ... Mutt will guess itself.
Figures. Thanks for the tip!
Thorsten
--
Whenever there is a conflict between human rights
and property rights, human
When you said you are suscribed to a list you don't need to said that
this is a list ... Mutt will guess itself.
So use lists for mailing-lists for which you are not subscribed and only
'suscribe' for subscribed ml.
Christophe
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:50:19PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
> Hi
Thank-you
It now works fine.
I didn't need the set part.
--
Check
out http://www.debian.org .
Let Freedom Ring.
Hi,
* chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-19 13:06]:
>What is the proper way to set up lists I have tried to use
>set lists = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" The manual says lists address address
>Tried that didn't go. The same for subscribed???
This is my entry for this list:
- - -
# Mutt
lists [
On (13/09/01 16:44), Vittorio wrote:
> How can I reply directly to the list address?
L, i.e. shift-l
--
Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
Vittorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 09/13/2001:
> i'm a subscriber of many lists and when i reply some message i have to
> modify the field 'to:' because in it invariably the name of the sender
> appears insted of the list address.
>
> i've tried modifying tke folder.hoo
Hello Adam!
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:22:08AM -0400, adam morley wrote:
> when i set a list to lists in my muttrc file, it recognizes
> the list. but when i say im subscribed to it, the pager (i think
> thats what its called, the thing where all the messages are display)
> shows the to line, n
* Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2001-04-17 10:22 +0200:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
>
> > Now, can I also flag such messages as important
> > automatically? I guess the "push" command is made for such cases, a little
> > example would help
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
> Now, can I also flag such messages as important
> automatically? I guess the "push" command is made for such cases, a little
> example would help me very much.
I'd have thought that using procmail to do this would b
* Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2001-04-16 22:22 +0200:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:37:03PM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
>
> > It would be convenient to have replies to my own postings to lists
> > (threads I've posted in) automatically marked. What filter criterium can
> > be used in this cas
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:37:03PM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
> It would be convenient to have replies to my own postings to lists
> (threads I've posted in) automatically marked. What filter criterium can
> be used in this case?
If, by "marked", you mean coloured in some way you can do it by se
On 2000-09-22 10:13:36 +0200, Jürgen Salk wrote:
>> The set of known lists (lists) is _always_ a subset of the set
>> of subscribed lists (subscribe).
> Are you perfectly sure? In my understanding, "lists" and
> "subscribe" does only make any sense, if addresses in "lists" are
> a superset of ad
On 21-Sep-2000, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> So, if I am understanding the multiple responses to my query correctly,
> since I subscribe to all of my lists, I can just hose the "lists" entry
> completely and the "subscribe" entries will take care of everything?
Right.
Ronny
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:05:21 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Dave Ewart wrote:
>
> > > [PS. Mail-Folllowup-To header ignored. You probably have a "lists"
> > > command which should be changed a "subscribe" command"].
> >
> > Ah - well spotted, Sir. Is
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 21 Sep 2000:
> The set of known lists (lists) is _always_ a subset of the set of
> subscribed lists (subscribe).
Umm, the other way around I believe. Or s/subset/superset/.
> Known lists are handled properly by list-reply, subscribed lists
> lea
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:41:26PM -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
> "subscribe" implies "lists", if you already specify it with subscribe,
> there's no need to specify it again in lists. lists indicates known
> list names which you don't necessarily subscribe to. This is used, for
> example, by the
On 21-Sep-2000, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> I still don't understand the difference between "lists" and "subscribe".
> When should each be used? I've always just added all my lists to both
> commands...
"subscribe" implies "lists", if you already specify it with subscribe,
there's no need to specify i
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:05:21PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> I still don't understand the difference between "lists" and "subscribe".
> When should each be used? I've always just added all my lists to both
> commands...
"lists" is for lists you want mutt to know about, but which you are not
n
On 2000-09-21 12:05:21 -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> I still don't understand the difference between "lists" and
> "subscribe". When should each be used? I've always just added
> all my lists to both commands...
The set of known lists (lists) is _always_ a subset of the set of
subscribed lists (
Using a large mallet, Ben Beuchler whacked out:
> I still don't understand the difference between "lists" and "subscribe".
Look at the readme.upgrade file. subscribe supersedes the old lists command.
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lumber Cartel of India + You spamma my mailbox
And life is good, it works, Mutt rocks. How many MUAs have I tried to find
nirvana? How many WMs did I install to enable this lib or that so some
esoteric function in the newest ginchey MUA would be available?
It wasn't whether this XPM lib was installed, or if that widget was
compiled, or ha
DAve proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>Why no threads? No list names in the index? I've looked through several
>sample muttrc files from the site, and read the FAQ but it still don't work.
>
>What did I forget/miss?
set sort=threads
Lists has been replaced by subscribe in newer mutts
-suresh
-
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 06:45:40AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen elucidated:
>
> It doesn't change with 1.1 (or 1.2 when it comes out). What you want to
> do is just set your $index_format to your preference. Start with the
> default value (shown in the manual) and get rid of the %L, replace it
> with
Dale Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 03 Mar 2000:
> I'm thinking I would like the lists feature better if I could somehow
> still have the default index_format set. Is there a way to do that? I'm
> using 1.0, obviously. Does the subscribed and lists features in 1.1
> somehow change t
Larry P . Schrof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 16 Feb 2000:
> I tried using aliases, but it did not give me the results I descibe
> just above.
Adding aliases for the list addresses and setting $reverse_alias should
do what you want.
Hope this helps,
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu
Hi E!
On Fri, 08 Oct 1999, E Forrest Carpenter wrote:
> > In my muttrc I have Lists mutt-users otherlists
> >
> > but if I reply to a list which is listed and there is a reply to, then Mutt
> > uses the reply-to not the list, I know about the Global reply but would just
> > prefer to reply
Hi Carsten!
On Fri, 08 Oct 1999, Carsten Luckmann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 04:04:00PM +, Sean Rima wrote:
> > In my muttrc I have Lists mutt-users otherlists
> >
> > but if I reply to a list which is listed and there is a reply to, then Mutt
> > uses the reply-to not the list,
> In my muttrc I have Lists mutt-users otherlists
>
> but if I reply to a list which is listed and there is a reply to, then Mutt
> uses the reply-to not the list, I know about the Global reply but would just
> prefer to reply to the list only. Any suggestions
set ignore_list_reply_to
--
On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 04:04:00PM +, Sean Rima wrote:
> In my muttrc I have Lists mutt-users otherlists
>
> but if I reply to a list which is listed and there is a reply to, then Mutt
> uses the reply-to not the list, I know about the Global reply but would just
> prefer to reply to the
Thomas Roessler [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On 1999-07-07 20:02:02 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
>
> > I have a question about the behaviour of the "lists" command. As
> > far as I know, you're only meant to use the first part of the email
> > address for each list (before the @) when listing ma
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 07 Jul 1999:
> Forget the "before the @" part of the description. The parameter
> you give to lists is the leading part of an e-mail address, possibly
> including the @.
Ahh, so it's possible to list entire email addresses? Eg.
"lists [EMAIL PRO
On 1999-07-07 20:02:02 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> I have a question about the behaviour of the "lists" command. As
> far as I know, you're only meant to use the first part of the email
> address for each list (before the @) when listing mailing lists
> with "lists". I've always wondered why
39 matches
Mail list logo
