Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-12 Thread Conor Daly
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 07:17:35PM -0500 or thereabouts, Aaron Schrab wrote: > At 09:23 +0930 12 Oct 2000, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or you could just make a minor modification to the grep pattern: > > ps -U $LOGNAME | grep 'r[e]almutt' > /dev/null > > That way grep won

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Bob Bell
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:23:29AM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Be careful about using grep to search the output of ps. For example > > > > $ ps ax | grep lemming > > 16004 tty1 S 0:00 grep lemming > > > > Y'see? Grep makes a match on its own process. > > It

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Conor Daly
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:38:31PM -0700 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, Bruce J.A. Nourish thought: > > if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null > > Be careful about using grep to search the output of ps. For example > > $ ps ax | grep lemming > 16004 tty1 S 0:00 grep lemming >

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread raf
Jamie Novak wrote: > On 10/11, Aaron Schrab rearranged the electrons to read: > > > Or you could just make a minor modification to the grep pattern: > > > > ps -U $LOGNAME | grep 'r[e]almutt' > /dev/null > > > > That way grep won't be able to match itself. > > You could also just do a: > >

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Aaron! On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Aaron Schrab wrote: > At 09:23 +0930 12 Oct 2000, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:38:31PM -0700, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote: > > > > if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null > > > > > > Be careful about using grep to

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Brian Salter-Duke
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 07:17:35PM -0500, Aaron Schrab wrote: > At 09:23 +0930 12 Oct 2000, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:38:31PM -0700, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote: > > > > if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null > > > > > > Be careful about usin

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Jamie Novak
On 10/11, Aaron Schrab rearranged the electrons to read: > Or you could just make a minor modification to the grep pattern: > > ps -U $LOGNAME | grep 'r[e]almutt' > /dev/null > > That way grep won't be able to match itself. You could also just do a: ps -U $LOGONAME | grep mutt | grep -v gre

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Aaron Schrab
At 09:23 +0930 12 Oct 2000, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:38:31PM -0700, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote: > > > if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null > > > > Be careful about using grep to search the output of ps. For example > > > > $ ps ax | grep l

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Brian Salter-Duke
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:38:31PM -0700, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote: > > if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null > > Be careful about using grep to search the output of ps. For example > > $ ps ax | grep lemming > 16004 tty1 S 0:00 grep lemming > > Y'see? Grep makes a match on it

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Bruce J.A. Nourish
> if ps -U $LOGNAME | grep realmutt > /dev/null Be careful about using grep to search the output of ps. For example $ ps ax | grep lemming 16004 tty1 S 0:00 grep lemming Y'see? Grep makes a match on its own process. -- [ Bruce J.A. Nourish (email and finger) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Brian Salter-Duke
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:19:24PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > the/eXtreme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 11 Oct 2000: > > I could use a shell script to `ps' for existing > > mutt sessions before launching another session; > > or is there a better way? > > How about a shell script that look

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Conor Daly
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:33:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, the/eXtreme wrote: > -: You'll notice the previous post includes the line > -: > -: touch $LOCKFILE > > Yes, silly of me. It also helps if the luser starts > the *first* mutt session using the script. Duh. Time of day, Time of day... --

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread the/eXtreme
-: You'll notice the previous post includes the line -: -: touch $LOCKFILE Yes, silly of me. It also helps if the luser starts the *first* mutt session using the script. Duh.

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Conor Daly
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:30:07PM -0500 or thereabouts, the/eXtreme wrote: > -: LOCKFILE=~/.mutt.lock > > Does a lock file exist for IMAP-configured mutt? When I > have a mutt session up, I can't find a lock file anywhere. > > Do I need to be concerned with the `dotlock_program' > configuratio

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread the/eXtreme
-: LOCKFILE=~/.mutt.lock Does a lock file exist for IMAP-configured mutt? When I have a mutt session up, I can't find a lock file anywhere. Do I need to be concerned with the `dotlock_program' configuration variable? My configuration and build of mutt-1.2.5 didn't create a `mutt_dotlock' binar

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Bruce DeVisser
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:49:40AM -0500, the/eXtreme wrote: > Hey, sometimes I shell out of a mutt window, > forget where I am (easy, when you're me), > and start another mutt session. Days can go > by before I catch the duplicated sessions. > > I could use a shell script to `ps' for existing >

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
the/eXtreme proclaimed on mutt-users that: > I could use a shell script to `ps' for existing > mutt sessions before launching another session; > or is there a better way? That is the best way ;) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis mallet @ cluestick.org + Lumber Cartel

Re: multiple mutts

2000-10-11 Thread Mikko Hänninen
the/eXtreme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 11 Oct 2000: > I could use a shell script to `ps' for existing > mutt sessions before launching another session; > or is there a better way? How about a shell script that looks (vaguely) like this: #!/bin/sh LOCKFILE=~/.mutt.lock if [ -f $LOCKFILE ];