On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:40:40PM -0500, Rob Reid wrote:
> At 8:42 PM EST on March 21 Gary Johnson sent off:
> > > And then if the message had a good reason to use HTML, I'd have to dig up
> > > how to *not* auto_view it, in order to send it to a real browser. That's
> > > why I stopped using
Rob --
...and then Rob Reid said...
%
% At 6:10 AM EST on March 22 Nicolas Rachinsky sent off:
% >
% > What happens if some mail is delivered to your inbox while you are
% > executing this macro? I think your mailbox will get corrupt.
%
% I'm not completely sure what happens, but my mail come
At 6:10 AM EST on March 22 Nicolas Rachinsky sent off:
> * Rob Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-21 19:10:40 -0500]:
> > macro index "H" "|/home/reid/bin/stripmime.pl >> /var/spool/mail/reid"
>
> What happens if some mail is delivered to your inbox while you are
> executing this macro? I think y
At 8:42 PM EST on March 21 Gary Johnson sent off:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:58:16PM -0500, Rob Reid wrote:
> > I've tried w3m and stripmime does just as well. In fact, I don't want any
> > fancy interpretation of HTML mail by default - it slows things down and can
> > be dangerous if the HTML
Quoting Mike Schiraldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Mar 21, 2002 17:17]:
> #! /usr/bin/perl -W
> while(<>) { print; s/\r//g; chomp; last unless $_; }
> while(<>) { y/A-Za-z/N-ZA-Mn-za-m/; print; }
while (<>) {
(1 .. /^$/) ? s/\r\n//g : y/A-Za-z/N-ZA-Mn-za-m/;
print;
}
:)
(darren)
--
A
* Rob Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-21 19:10:40 -0500]:
> At 5:18 PM EST on March 21 Mike Schiraldi sent off:
> > I don't know. It would be nice to press the key bound to and type,
> > like,
> > perl -pe 's/<.*?>//g'
> > to remove all HTML tags from a message.
>
> It's practically a necess
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:33:47:PM -0800 Gary Johnson wrote:
> You're going to too much work, and I would imagine that the results
> don't look very good. To fix HTML e-mail, just put this in your mailcap
> file:
> text/html; w3m -dump %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput
> and thi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:58:16PM -0500, Rob Reid wrote:
> At 7:33 PM EST on March 21 Gary Johnson sent off:
> > You're going to too much work, and I would imagine that the results
> > don't look very good. To fix HTML e-mail, just put this in your mailcap
> > file:
> >
> > text/html; w3m
At 7:33 PM EST on March 21 Gary Johnson sent off:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:10:40PM -0500, Rob Reid wrote:
> > # Despite the name, stripmime.pl is really for deHTMLization.
> > macro index "H" "|/home/reid/bin/stripmime.pl >> /var/spool/mail/reid"
> >
> > i.e. it makes a copy that goes in my
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:10:40PM -0500, Rob Reid wrote:
> Why do you need to *replace* the message with its filtered version?
>
> At 5:18 PM EST on March 21 Mike Schiraldi sent off:
> > I don't know. It would be nice to press the key bound to and type,
> > like,
> > perl -pe 's/<.*?>//g'
> >
At 6:50 PM EST on March 21 Steve Talley sent off:
> One more example:
>
> formail -i 'References: <...>'
>
> to force a message into a thread (and overcome poorly-behaved mailers
> that leave out the References: and In-Reply-To: headers).
I like patch-1.3.25.cd.edit_threads.9.1 for that.
Why do you need to *replace* the message with its filtered version?
At 5:18 PM EST on March 21 Mike Schiraldi sent off:
> I don't know. It would be nice to press the key bound to and type,
> like,
> perl -pe 's/<.*?>//g'
> to remove all HTML tags from a message.
It's practically a necessity b
Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > > or "grep -v '^X-Priority'" would work.
> >
> > .. which you can use via a subshell.
>
> I don't know. It would be nice to press the key bound to and type,
> like,
> perl -pe 's/<.*?>//g'
> to remove all HTML tags from a message.
>
> Or
> tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m
> to ro
> > or "grep -v '^X-Priority'" would work.
>
> .. which you can use via a subshell.
I don't know. It would be nice to press the key bound to and type,
like,
perl -pe 's/<.*?>//g'
to remove all HTML tags from a message.
Or
tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m
to rot13 a message. Of course, that'd mess up t
* Steve Talley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-21 20:35]:
> One suggestion I could see for improvement would be to
> prompt for a filter program (instead of an alternate editor)
> and then replace the message with the STDOUT of the filter.
jeez - what else does mutt have to get for this?
if you want
This is cool! Thanks Mike!
One suggestion I could see for improvement would be to prompt for a
filter program (instead of an alternate editor) and then replace the
message with the STDOUT of the filter. That way simple things like:
sed 's/\ would be something like
Filter command:
Any
Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > Perhaps something as simple as renaming the edit-message function to
> > tweak-message, telling it to use $tweak_prog which defaults to $editor
> > if $t_p is undefined, and explaining in the manual why tweak-message is
> > bound to 'e' would do it.
>
> How about just
Here's the patch. I wrote it, i'll let you test it.
Don't forget to "sleep 1" or else mutt will assume your script didn't do
anything.
--
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research
Index: OPS
===
RCS file: /home/roessler/cvs/mutt/
> Perhaps something as simple as renaming the edit-message function to
> tweak-message, telling it to use $tweak_prog which defaults to $editor
> if $t_p is undefined, and explaining in the manual why tweak-message is
> bound to 'e' would do it.
How about just adding a command called ? It promp
Steve --
This is my only other response on the subject, I promise :-)
...and then Steve Talley said...
%
% It looks like modifying the $editor variable and resetting it later is
% the easiest solution. It's a shame mutt can't do this more elegantly.
I can't imagine a more elegant way, since t
Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Steve Talley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-21 00:29]:
>
> > > workaround: "save" the message to a new folder. edit
> > > that folder (basically just that message). call mutt
> > > on that folder again - and save the message back.
> >
> > Sounds overly complicated.
>
> reall
Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Steve Talley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-20 23:58]:
>
> > The pipe command doesn't save the output of the command as a new
> > version of the message. It also doesn't mark the original message
> > as deleted.
>
> workaround: "save" the message to a new folder. edit that f
* Steve Talley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-20 23:58]:
> The pipe command doesn't save the output of
> the command as a new version of the message.
> It also doesn't mark the original message as deleted.
well, that's why I suggested you send the resulting
message to yourself again so it gets inje
23 matches
Mail list logo
