Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I believe the suggestion was something to the effect of
>
>send-hook ! . 'my_hdr Blah: foo'
That won't quite work. Internally, Mutt translates the simple pattern
"." into ~A, which matches everything. Negating that matches nothing,
which is the ef
* Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-22 18:01]:
> What's the equivalent of send-hook when
> using the NNTP patch? Is there a followup-hook?
No.
> I'd like to add a header for only news postings.
send-hook "! ~t ." command
send-hook "~t ." command-default
Sven
--
Sven Guckes
Drew --
...and then Drew Raines said...
%
% + David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
% >
% > An approach that I recall as successful was to set up a send-hook that
% > only triggered when there is no to: field and set the header in there,
% > turning it off (or changing it) otherwise if to: can match an
+ David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> An approach that I recall as successful was to set up a send-hook that
> only triggered when there is no to: field and set the header in there,
> turning it off (or changing it) otherwise if to: can match anything.
I believe the suggestion was something to the
Drew --
...and then Drew Raines said...
%
% What's the equivalent of send-hook when using the NNTP patch? Is there a
% followup-hook?
I don't think that there is any such beast.
%
% I'd like to add a header for only news postings.
This came up just recently. I think Sven Guckes, at least,
