Re: Send hook question

2000-10-10 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:52:49PM +0200, Ulf Erikson wrote: > >mostly I think the autoedit is a bit easier > > (ie I am lazy :), especially when replying. The 'To' and 'Subject' > > normally have already been decided in this case. I rarely change To or > > Subject on a

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-10 Thread Ulf Erikson
>mostly I think the autoedit is a bit easier > (ie I am lazy :), especially when replying. The 'To' and 'Subject' > normally have already been decided in this case. I rarely change To or > Subject on a reply. Now, for a new mail, it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you ar

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-10 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:51:31AM -0400, David T-G wrote: > Hal -- > > ...and then Hal Burgiss said... > % > % Yea, it works fine with autoedit off, but I like autoedit too :( > > What does autoedit get you that you can't have otherwise? Do you have > edit_hdrs set, maybe, and like to play wi

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-09 Thread David T-G
Hal -- ...and then Hal Burgiss said... % % Yea, it works fine with autoedit off, but I like autoedit too :( What does autoedit get you that you can't have otherwise? Do you have edit_hdrs set, maybe, and like to play with your headers there? I find that edit_hdrs lets me muck around to my hea

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-06 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 07:27:38PM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: > Hal Burgiss muttered: > I don't have a clue how combine autoedit and send-hooks. Harold says > it is possible so maybe you should start a new muttrc from scratch > and you'll see which line confuses mutt. Sounds challenging. Would

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-06 Thread Michael Tatge
Hal Burgiss muttered: > > > do you have 'autoedit' set? > > > > He does. And that's why the send-hooks do not work. So, Hal the solution is > > obvious - give up that autoedit stuff. > > Yea, it works fine with autoedit off, but I like autoedit too :( > > You confuse me with your from header for

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:08:48PM +0200, Hal Burgiss wrote: > Peter Jaques muttered: > > > > > Please post your whole muttrc. > > > http://feenix.eyep.net/xstuff/muttrc > > do you have 'autoedit' set? > > He does. And that's why the send-hooks do not work. So, Hal the solution is > obvious - gi

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Harold Oga
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:08:48PM +0200, Hal Burgiss wrote: >Peter Jaques muttered: > >> > > Please post your whole muttrc. >> > http://feenix.eyep.net/xstuff/muttrc >> do you have 'autoedit' set? > >He does. And that's why the send-hooks do not work. So, Hal the solution is >obvious - give up th

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
Peter Jaques muttered: > > > Please post your whole muttrc. > > http://feenix.eyep.net/xstuff/muttrc > do you have 'autoedit' set? He does. And that's why the send-hooks do not work. So, Hal the solution is obvious - give up that autoedit stuff. HTH, Michael -- Our informal mission is to impr

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Mikko Hänninen
Dan Boger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 05 Oct 2000: > FWIW, I've been trying to do something very similar... mutt 1.2.5i > > send-hook . 'set [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > send-hook .*lugnet\.com 'set [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > from what I can tell, the send hook DOES work, only AFTER I actually send >

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Peter Jaques
do you have 'autoedit' set? if you do, here's what happens: when you hit 'm' to start a message, there is no recipient specified, so 'from' gets set to the default value. you have to let mutt prompt for the recipient before you edit, so that it can set the 'from' header. peter On 5 Oct 00, 7:4

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: > Hal Burgiss muttered: > > > > unset use_from > > Don't know why you do that, but according to the docs it shouldn't > hurt. It might be worth testing without this line, though. Still no go. -- Hal B [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PR

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Dan Boger
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:44:31AM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:30:40AM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:29:30PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > > >On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:25:47PM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > > >> > > >> send-hook . 'my_hdr From: Hal

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Dan Boger
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:44:31AM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:30:40AM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:29:30PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > > >On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:25:47PM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > > >> > > >> send-hook . 'my_hdr From: Hal

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: > Hal Burgiss muttered: > > Should the below not work? I could swear it used to ;) Recently even. > > Despite much playing with this, I cannot get the header to handle the > > exceptions. > > > > > > unset use_from > > Don't know wh

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:30:40AM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:29:30PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:25:47PM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > >> > >> send-hook . 'my_hdr From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > >> send-hook '~C redhat-list' 'my_hdr Fr

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-05 Thread Michael Tatge
Hal Burgiss muttered: > Should the below not work? I could swear it used to ;) Recently even. > Despite much playing with this, I cannot get the header to handle the > exceptions. > > > unset use_from Don't know why you do that, but according to the docs it shouldn't hurt. It might be worth tes

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-04 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 06:25:47PM -0600, Harold Oga wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 07:58:13PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: > >Should the below not work? I could swear it used to ;) Recently > >even. Despite much playing with this, I cannot get the header to > >handle the exceptions. > > > >unset u

Re: Send hook question

2000-10-04 Thread Harold Oga
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 07:58:13PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote: >Should the below not work? I could swear it used to ;) Recently even. >Despite much playing with this, I cannot get the header to handle the >exceptions. > > >unset use_from >send-hook . 'my_hdr From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' >s

Send hook question

2000-10-04 Thread Hal Burgiss
Should the below not work? I could swear it used to ;) Recently even. Despite much playing with this, I cannot get the header to handle the exceptions. unset use_from send-hook . 'my_hdr From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' send-hook redhat-list 'my_hdr From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'

Re: just another send-hook question

1999-11-12 Thread Byrial Jensen
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 07:10:25 +0100, Richard P. Groenewegen wrote: > Hi, > > Here's something that's either trivial or impossible. I want > something like > > send-hook '~t [EMAIL PROTECTED]' '' > > but I'll only want this send-hook to work if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the only > recipien

Re: just another send-hook question

1999-11-12 Thread David DeSimone
Richard P. Groenewegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > send-hook '~t [EMAIL PROTECTED]' '' > > but I'll only want this send-hook to work if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the only > recipient. Isn't there a pattern modifier "^" that means "only"? send-hook '^~t [EMAIL PROTECTED]' '' That matc

just another send-hook question

1999-11-11 Thread Richard P. Groenewegen
Hi, Here's something that's either trivial or impossible. I want something like send-hook '~t [EMAIL PROTECTED]' '' but I'll only want this send-hook to work if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the only recipient. On a related note: how do I limit to all messages send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but

Re: send-hook question

1999-08-06 Thread David DeSimone
Christian Schult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > send-hook '~A' '[...]' > > I'd suggest using . instead of ~A. The dot specifies a default when > no other pattern matches. ~A means "all mail" and later patterns will > not match. Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware, '.' a

Re: send-hook question

1999-08-06 Thread Christian Schult
Salvatore Greco wrote: > I am having a syntax hassle with my send-hooks after and upgrade. > > Below is a snippet of some of my send-hooks > > -- [send-hooks from .muttrc] > > send-hook '~A' 'set signature=~/.signature; my_hdr From: Salvatore Greco ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; my_hdr Reply-To: [EMAI

Re: send-hook question

1999-08-05 Thread Salvatore Greco
Erk, what I meant to say was that they were not working - neither the my_hdr, the set signature. On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 08:35:54AM +0200, To [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | -- [send-hooks from .muttrc] | | send-hook '~A' 'set signature=~/.signature; my_hdr From: Salvatore Greco |<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

send-hook question

1999-08-05 Thread Salvatore Greco
Good day :) I am having a syntax hassle with my send-hooks after and upgrade. Below is a snippet of some of my send-hooks -- [send-hooks from .muttrc] send-hook '~A' 'set signature=~/.signature; my_hdr From: Salvatore Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; my_hdr Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' send-hook '