On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:32:33PM +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23:19AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
> > changed my 'reply_regexp' by adding "[ \t]*" before the color per
> > Cameron's suggestion, and replied to it. Mutt removed the "RE :"
> > and replaced it with "Re:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23:19AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote:
> changed my 'reply_regexp' by adding "[ \t]*" before the color per
> Cameron's suggestion, and replied to it. Mutt removed the "RE :"
> and replaced it with "Re: ", as it should.
So there's something else broken in my config. I will s
On 2009-11-23, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:09AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > There's no whitespace before the colon in the above pattern, so it
> > won't match "RE :".
> >
> > Try:
> > set reply_regexp="^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg)[ \t]*:[
> > \t
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:09AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> There's no whitespace before the colon in the above pattern, so it
> won't match "RE :".
>
> Try:
> set reply_regexp="^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg)[ \t]*:[
> \t]*)+"
>
> You can see I've added "[ \t]*" before the
On 21Nov2009 23:20, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
| On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM +0100, Michael Wagner wrote:
| > I have this in my muttrc and it works:
| >
| > set reply_regexp="^((re([\[^-][0-9]+\]?)*|aw|antwort|antw|wg):[ \t]*)+"
|
| Thanks for your reply.
| Well, I just tried it (edited my ~
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:14:08PM +0100, Michael Wagner wrote:
> * Nicolas KOWALSKI 21.11.2009
>
> > Sometimes I receive mail replies with the "RE : "
> > string as subject. This "RE : " is apparently not recognized by the
> > default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of ma
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:48:30PM -0700, RobertHoltzman wrote:
>
> My understanding is that threading has nothing to do with the subject
> line. If it did threads couldn't be hijacked. What am I missing?
Check out "strict_threads" in the muttrc manual.
--
Monte
Hei hei,
> My understanding is that threading has nothing to do with the subject
> line. If it did threads couldn't be hijacked. What am I missing?
Maybe the following mail headers: Message-ID, References and In-Reply-To.
Greets
Alex
--
»With the first link, the chain is forged. The first spee
* Nicolas KOWALSKI 21.11.2009
> Sometimes I receive mail replies with the "RE : "
> string as subject. This "RE : " is apparently not recognized by the
> default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of mail,
> mutt add another "Re: " in front of the subject line; furthermore,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 07:29:18PM +0100, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sometimes I receive mail replies with the "RE : "
> string as subject. This "RE : " is apparently not recognized by the
> default reply_regexp value, because when I reply to this kind of mail,
> mutt add another "Re:
Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 11/09/2001:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> >
> > I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly
> > different than mutt's.
>
> mutts regexp == POSIX?
> Is it gnu or cl
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Magnus Bodin (dis)graced my inbox with:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> >
> > I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly
> > different than mutt's.
>
> mutts regexp == POSIX?
> Is it gnu o
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly
> different than mutt's.
mutts regexp == POSIX?
Is it gnu or classic Henry Spencer?
/magnus
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:08:30PM -0300, Robson Braga Araujo (dis)graced my inbox
with:
> > If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. So just
> > write "re" instead of "[Rr][Ee]". Maybe this helps you to find the
> > error.
>
> I know, I wrote it in perl to test and then cut
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:50:00PM +0100, Volker Moell wrote:
> Robson Braga Araujo wrote:
> >
> > I would like to know why a regular expression like
> > '^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\]
>*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*'
> > does not work
Robson Braga Araujo wrote:
>
> I would like to know why a regular expression like
> '^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\]
>*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*'
> does not work in mutt.
If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. S
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 05:39:29AM -0700, David T-G wrote:
> specifically (yes, it's a really good time to be able to say
>
> set BASE_REGEXP='^((blah blah ...'
> folder-hook linux set reply_regexp "\[linux\] $BASE_REGEXP"
> folder-hook other set reply_regexp "\[OtherList\] $BASE_REGEXP"
>
Or
([Rr][Ee]):
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 06:29:24PM +0200, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
> > hello,
> >
> > how can I set reply_regexp to accept re: and Re: and RE: ?
>
> (re|Re|RE):
>
> or just make it case insensitive.
>
> --
>
Hi!
David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel González Gasull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > set reply_regexp="^((re|aw):[ \t]*)+"
> >
> > but it don't works fine for messages with "Re: Re: "
> > in the Subject:. I think the value of the variable is
> > correct. Isn't it?
>
Daniel González Gasull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> set reply_regexp="^((re|aw):[ \t]*)+"
>
> but it don't works fine for messages with "Re: Re: "
> in the Subject:. I think the value of the variable is
> correct. Isn't it?
Yes, it is correct.
> BTW, I use Mutt 0.93.2i.
What is your
20 matches
Mail list logo
