Conor Daly muttered:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:51:29PM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Michael Tatge thought:
> >
> > If dad.rc and mom.rc change different settings the result would be
> > a mixture of dad.rc and mom.rc. :(
> Kinda like "child.rc" ? :-)
Well spotted Sir!
Michael
--
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:51:29PM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Michael Tatge thought:
>
> No, mutt would first load dad.rc since the 2nd send-hook matches and
> then mom.rc since the 3rd send-hook matches, too. If dad.rc and mom.rc
> change different settings the result would be a mix
Nils Vogels muttered:
>
> send-hook '.' source ~/.mutt/default.rc
> send-hook '~C [EMAIL PROTECTED]' source ~/.mutt/dad.rc
> send-hook '~C [EMAIL PROTECTED]' source ~/.mutt/mom.rc
>
> What would happen if I would send a mail to both dad and mom ?
>
> Which RC
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:59:21AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
-8<-
> So doing
>
> send-hook '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ...
>
> is equal to
>
> send-hook "~f [EMAIL PROTECTED] !~P | (~P ~C [EMAIL PROTECTED])" ...
>
Small question:
If I have multiple send-hooks setup like this:
send-hook '.'
Bruce J.A. Nourish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 06 Oct 2000:
> > send-hook '~C [EMAIL PROTECTED]' "set signature=~/.sigs/offical.sig"
>
> I was under the impression that send-hooks just needed an address, not a
> pattern. This is a sample of what i have
>
> send-hook '.'
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 12:17:39AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> Send-hooks are only one reason why mutt sucks less. Say you send a
> message to your boss and therefore want your offical signature rather
> than the funny witches one. No prob!
>
> # default hook that matches everything
> send-hook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] muttered:
> I pulled the mutt manual from the web,
Maybe you should start reading it? ;)
> I see something called "sourcing" a file. What does that mean?
The source command is used to tell mutt to read a rcfile. Normally you
would add 'source ' to your muttrc, but you can use
