Re: fcc-hook

Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 01:21:08PM +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote: > > I'd like to disable fcc when sending to certain domains/addresses. > > What's the correct syntax? I've come up with > > > > fcc-hook @example.com /dev/null &g

Re: fcc-hook

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 01:21:08PM +0700, Victor Sudakov wrote: I'd like to disable fcc when sending to certain domains/addresses. What's the correct syntax? I've come up with fcc-hook @example.com /dev/null but this /dev/null thing looks kind of ugly. I with I could just uns

fcc-hook

Dear Colleagues, I'd like to disable fcc when sending to certain domains/addresses. What's the correct syntax? I've come up with fcc-hook @example.com /dev/null but this /dev/null thing looks kind of ugly. I with I could just unset fcc for some addresses. -- Victor Sudakov, V

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:22:18PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día viernes, noviembre 06, 2020 a las 10:02:46a. m. -0800, Ian Zimmerman escribió: So, does mutt set SIG_IGN for SIGCHLD? Maybe it should not, or maybe it should temporarily restore it in places like this where it synchronously

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

El día viernes, noviembre 06, 2020 a las 10:02:46a. m. -0800, Ian Zimmerman escribió: > On 2020-11-06 08:25, Matthias Apitz wrote: > > > See also man page of wait(2): the errno=ECHILD: > > >ECHILD (for waitpid() or waitid()) The process specified by pid > >(waitpid()) or idtype

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On 2020-11-06 08:25, Matthias Apitz wrote: > See also man page of wait(2): the errno=ECHILD: >ECHILD (for waitpid() or waitid()) The process specified by pid >(waitpid()) or idtype and id (waitid()) does not exist or is >not a child of the calling process. (This can happe

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

El día jueves, noviembre 05, 2020 a las 02:05:38p. m. -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy escribió: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:43:17PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > >And as I said, all is working fine, i.e. the mails get sent fine, the > >only problem is this message spilt out by mutt about mail not sent

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 14:05:38 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:43:17PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > >And as I said, all is working fine, i.e. the mails get sent fine, the > >only problem is this message spilt out by mutt about mail not sent. > > > >I will nail this

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:43:17PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: And as I said, all is working fine, i.e. the mails get sent fine, the only problem is this message spilt out by mutt about mail not sent. I will nail this down, it will only take some time, and I feel that it has todo with the handl

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

El día jueves, noviembre 05, 2020 a las 11:03:00a. m. -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy escribió: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: > >It *is* supported by mutt using the following trick: one of the arguments > >to mutt is: > > > > | mutt -d4 -e "set sendmail=\"cat --\"

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 07:55:11PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: It *is* supported by mutt using the following trick: one of the arguments to mutt is: | mutt -d4 -e "set sendmail=\"cat --\"" ... | sendmail -t I see. But wouldn't the recipients be appended to $sendmail, and then cat compl

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

El día jueves, noviembre 05, 2020 a las 10:17:25a. m. -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy escribió: > >Thanks for the reply. The used mutt is version 1.18.3 (see debug log > >below). I put a tee command between mut and sendmail to see what mutt > >is spilling out to sendmail: > > > > ... | mutt -d4 |

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:41:55AM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: El día miércoles, noviembre 04, 2020 a las 09:33:34a. m. -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy escribió: On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 01:17:44PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: >We use mutt in batch mode to assemble mails with all attachments etc. >an

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

ndmail -t which works also > >fine. But is complaining on STDERR that the mail could not be sent with > > > >Could not send the message. > > > >I looked into the source send.c and the error message is triggered by > >some internal FCC error, perhaps just due to the mi

Re: FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

message. I looked into the source send.c and the error message is triggered by some internal FCC error, perhaps just due to the missing ~/Mail dir or something the like. The mail is sent fine. You didn't mention what version of Mutt you are using on the server. There has been a fair amou

FCC error, may be caused by missing dir ~/Mail

mail to /usr/lib/sendmail -t which works also fine. But is complaining on STDERR that the mail could not be sent with Could not send the message. I looked into the source send.c and the error message is triggered by some internal FCC error, perhaps just due to the missing ~/Mail dir or something

Re: Conditional FCC

> Please try the following approach: > --- > send-hook '~t .' 'set record = =sent' > > send-hook '~t ^addr1@example\.com$' 'set record = /dev/null' > send-hook '~s private' 'set record = /dev/null' > --- I didn't tried this yet, but I think this is the solution I've been looking for. Thank you!

Re: Conditional FCC

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 09:06:35PM +0300, Nikolay Brovko wrote: I think below approach shoud do the trick? --- folder-hook foo 'set record = /dev/null' --- Not actually. I want it to work for single account. Some mail should be stored in =Sent, some mail shouldn't. For example messages for ad..

Re: Conditional FCC

> I think below approach shoud do the trick? > --- > folder-hook foo 'set record = /dev/null' > --- Not actually. I want it to work for single account. Some mail should be stored in =Sent, some mail shouldn't. For example messages for ad...@example.com should not be saved. Or messages, which Subje

Re: Conditional FCC

every folder must hit some folder hook for it. # No Fcc for emails composed from this folder. folder-hook secret 'set record = /dev/null' # Every other folder sets Fcc according to the account it belongs # to. folder-hook account1 'set record = ...'

Re: Conditional FCC

Hi, On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:57:47PM +0300, Nikolay Brovko wrote: Hi there! Is there any way to 'set record' conditionally? I mean I do not want to save some messages at all. It'll be conveniently to set some regex for To or Subject headers, which messages shouldn't have

Conditional FCC

Hi there! Is there any way to 'set record' conditionally? I mean I do not want to save some messages at all. It'll be conveniently to set some regex for To or Subject headers, which messages shouldn't have FCC. -- Nikolay Brovko ( https://nickey.ru/ ) OpenPGP: 6965 A4A3

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

[Sent before I intended to.] On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 01:53:18AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way > convinced. I'd love for you to explain why. Note that Kevin confirmed that my arguments are technically correct. So despite that I t

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 01:53:18AM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > I can only say, Erik wrote the answer I wanted to write. > > @Kevin: The new change sounds very promising. Thank you for that > and all your work! > > @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way > convinced.

Re: Making attachments [Was: Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 03:34:00PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: That looks quite useful. There's also the CheckAttach vim plugin, by Christian Brabandt. Starting in 1.10, there is also $abort_noattach in Mutt. It's not quite as useful, because it waits until you hit send and then scans the

Making attachments [Was: Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 16.06.19 09:48, Cameron Simpson wrote: > I compose with edit_headers=yes, so recipients and subject are part of the > temporary file. > > Also, I attach using the Attach: pseudo header, so the attachment filename > is also part of the temp file. Provided I haven't exited the compose mode > (whe

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11Jun2019 20:21, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: * Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:47 -0500]: Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the file your editor produced in order for it to be passed to Mutt will still be on disk, so you do IN FACT still have a copy of the message.

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 10Jun2019 11:56, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: [...slightly extreme failure modes elided...] For me, the difference is that having extra Fcc copies is nowhere near as bad as not having any. If you're this paranoid, the only real fix

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

I can only say, Erik wrote the answer I wanted to write. @Kevin: The new change sounds very promising. Thank you for that and all your work! @Derek: I've read your mails in this thread, and I'm in no way convinced. HAND Nicolas

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

; paranoid or irrational, That's not quite what I'm saying (see below)... > but Mutt users in general *really* *care* about email. Of course, I realize that, I'm one of them. :) [...] > It's evident, to me, that this change is extremely distressing to at > least a

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

also pay attention to other people's viewpoints, especially long time users. Technically, the arguments for post-send fcc are fine. I believe that, barring the most extreme cases, the pieces are there to prevent major loss (albeit sometimes with $tmpdir diving if mutt was killed). It&

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

demonstrated. The current behavior actually gets you literally everything you want. It just does it differently than you expected... but it still does it. There's no need for the Fcc first-behavior, and it is demonstrably worse for more than one reason. As such it should be excluded. I can not see h

Re: When using mutt with mailto: From and Fcc are holding wrong values

15:40, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Martin wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I'm using mutt on Debian with several accounts and Firefox as a > > browser. When I click on a mailto: link it opens a new terminal with > > mutt and from all I see it does pick up my muttrc correctly, b

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11.06.19 12:36, Derek Martin wrote: > I hesitate to go far as to say that if you think saving the message > first is the right behavior, you are simply wrong... but I'm > definitely thinking it. =8^) I like your style, Derek. And respect that your use case works for you. What surprises me is th

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 11.06.19 13:45, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, > > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > $fcc_before_send, defaul

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:45:18PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > > $fcc_before_send, default unset. >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:45:18PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds > $fcc_before_send, default unset. Obviously you don't need to listen t

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 06:43:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, I've pushed a branch up to gitlab, kevin/fcc-before-send. It adds $fcc_before_send, default unset. The caveats to enabling are as mentioned: message manipulati

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

to send the message to, you can set edit_headers=yes and Mutt will copy the headers into the temporary file, so you will not lose those either. The notion is completely asinine, but it was raised as a concern, so, there you go. 4. Mutt will update encryption and any heaers added or changed

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Hi Mutters, I haven't been following the thread but just to reply to a few points with the names of the posters removed in order to focus on content rather than who said what: > > It's not your > > mail client's job to protect you from every conceibable system > > failure which might cause data

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Derek Martin [2019-06-11 12:47 -0500]: > Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the > file your editor produced in order for it to be passed to Mutt will > still be on disk, so you do IN FACT still have a copy of the message. I did just (using my old mutt) set sendmail

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

in which mutt should risk inability to write that Fcc, through a > > hang-up or conniption during sending. > > This argument seems like complete nonsense to me... if the send > fails, you're left back at the compose screen. If by some > unbelievable coincidence the send fails

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

y) > > > > > > Why would this situation would ever occur? > > > > A power failure at the wrong moment. A crash at the wrong moment. ... > > > > These things tend to happen only at wrong moments. > > But the failure mode of the current behavior is super

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:36:00PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > But also, just because the message failed to send, your ideas and the > impetus for writing them down didn't vanish. Your brain is the > back-up. Not only that, but I neglected the fact that if the send fails, the file your editor pr

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:04:25PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > In the event that send fails, the local copy is essential for a resend > attempt. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. I'm at a loss to imagine any > scenario in which mutt should risk inability to write that Fcc, through

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

r? > > A power failure at the wrong moment. A crash at the wrong moment. ... > > These things tend to happen only at wrong moments. But the failure mode of the current behavior is superior: With the old way, you look in Fcc and see the message was sent, so you don't send it again (

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:04:25PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: If developers insist on the backwards method for themselves, then is an fcc_order config option possible for the benefit of users seeking the old reliability? Something like $fcc_order or $fcc_before_send is possible, but with

Re: When using mutt with mailto: From and Fcc are holding wrong values

Martin wrote: > Hello everyone, > I'm using mutt on Debian with several accounts and Firefox as a > browser. When I click on a mailto: link it opens a new terminal with > mutt and from all I see it does pick up my muttrc correctly, but the > new email has "Fcc:"

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

n mutt-dev was > > <https://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=146942930418541&w=2>. The issue is > > contentious, and there are arguments on both sides. > > Thank you for the reference. > > > In this case, the comments by active developers seemed to be in consensus >

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Ben Boeckel [2019-06-10 11:56 -0400]: > If you're this paranoid, the only real fix is to have your editor save a > backup somewhere before handing it off to mutt in the first place > anyways. After all, mutt could segfault and lose it before the Fcc! There is one big diffe

When using mutt with mailto: From and Fcc are holding wrong values

Hello everyone, I'm using mutt on Debian with several accounts and Firefox as a browser. When I click on a mailto: link it opens a new terminal with mutt and from all I see it does pick up my muttrc correctly, but the new email has "Fcc:" as ~/sent and "From" as myuser .

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 20190610, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: As other(s) have mentioned, power failure, cat jumping on keyboard. I have also had sends hang seemingly forever, and the only way forward is tokill the tmux session. Then I have no Fcc copy. I can

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 08:40:30 -0700, Felix Finch wrote: > As other(s) have mentioned, power failure, cat jumping on keyboard. I > have also had sends hang seemingly forever, and the only way forward > is tokill the tmux session. Then I have no Fcc copy. I can root > around /tmp

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 20190610, Felix Finch wrote: Perhaps a compromise is to Fcc as a draft file first, then send, then move the draft Fcc file to its permanent location. Not so clever with IMAP draft files. It would have to be a special local file, and mutt would have to look for it on start

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

have no Fcc copy. I can root around /tmp to find the message, but I shouldn''t have to. For me, the difference is that having extra Fcc copies is nowhere near as bad as not having any. Another factor is that the Fcc is much less likely to fail than the send. Perhaps a compromise is

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Francesco Ariis [2019-06-04 19:52 +0200]: > Hello Grant, > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:46:50PM -, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > > > > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > > > situation:

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

* Jack M [2019-06-04 10:20 -0500]: > On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > The other one (mail sent, but no local copy) > > Why would this situation would ever occur? A power failure at the wrong moment. A crash at the wrong moment. ... These things tend to happen only at w

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

146942930418541&w=2>. The issue is > contentious, and there are arguments on both sides. Thank you for the reference. > In this case, the comments by active developers seemed to be in consensus > that prompting if Fcc fails afterwards is a reasonable compromise. Ok, so I will replace $sendmai

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: >> >> >>> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >>> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weir

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, June 4, 2019 10:46 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > >> The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following >> situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but >> the user has no idea whether the ma

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Hello Grant, On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:46:50PM -, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > > > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > > the user has

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On 2019-06-04, Jack M wrote: > The reason (or *a* reason) is that the old way led to the following > situation: Fcc first, then try to send, something weird happens, but > the user has no idea whether the mail was actually sent or not How could the user not know? If the send fails, mu

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

In this case, the comments by active developers seemed to be in consensus that prompting if Fcc fails afterwards is a reasonable compromise. Another reason was the implementation of Protected Headers. The current mechanism supporting $fcc_attach and $fcc_clear already went through gymnastic

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, June 4, 2019 5:30 am, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > Hallo, > > > I just noted the entry in UPDATING: > ! Fcc now occurs after sending a message. If the fcc fails, mutt will > prompt to try again, or to try another mailbox. > > This seems to be: > https://git

Re: order of sending mail and saving to fcc

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > I considered the previous order (save to fcc, then send the mail) > always the correct one. If anything bad happens (network connectivity > failing (in case of imap), computer crashing,...), it seems to > produce the be

order of sending mail and saving to fcc

Hallo, I just noted the entry in UPDATING: ! Fcc now occurs after sending a message. If the fcc fails, mutt will prompt to try again, or to try another mailbox. This seems to be: https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/commit/e106487b1f4ebe7128982486accec11ac6f54b5c Does anybody know the reason

Re: Changing Fcc in compose mode

aders by entering > single letter cmds, I think all the 1st letter of the header > name. So "f" to specify a non-default Fcc: file. That's precisely the part I'm interested in. Turns out I have overridden 'f' with something else in my config and could not get to

Re: Changing Fcc in compose mode

On 13.03.16 16:13, Matthias Vallentin wrote: > Is it possible to change the Fcc value manually in compose mode right > before sending (independent of fcc-hook)? Yes. Hit F1, and have a look at "edit_headers". Also, after the edit, back in the compose menu, hit '?' and

Changing Fcc in compose mode

Is it possible to change the Fcc value manually in compose mode right before sending (independent of fcc-hook)? My use case is GMail tagging: I like to save a message in a particular folder (which implicitly tags it in an IMAP setup), but would like to do so right before sending in compose mode

keep Fcc/Bcc when replying

Hello all This is probably trivial, however I could not find the appropriate section in the manual. I have a message that I sent and which may include Cc, Bcc and Fcc headers. Ho do I reply, including all Cc + Fcc + Bcc recipients? seems to work only * for Cc * when the message is not from

Re: more than one FCC possible?

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Michael Tatge wrote: > * On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 06:22PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered: >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Michael Tatge wrote: >> > * On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 11:53PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) >> > muttered: >> >> My goal is to

Re: more than one FCC possible?

* On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 06:22PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Michael Tatge wrote: > > * On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 11:53PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered: > >> My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. > > > > Why don't

Re: more than one FCC possible?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:53:40PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. One way I >> am thinking of doing this is copying a message to a temporary

Re: more than one FCC possible?

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:53:40PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote: > Dear all, > > My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. One way I > am thinking of doing this is copying a message to a temporary file > (via FCC) and then getting its message ID with a script. Is this &

Re: more than one FCC possible?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Michael Tatge wrote: > * On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 11:53PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered: >> My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. One way I >> am thinking of doing this is copying a message to a temporary file &

Re: more than one FCC possible?

* On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 11:53PM -0400 Xu Wang (xuwang...@gmail.com) muttered: > My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. One way I > am thinking of doing this is copying a message to a temporary file > (via FCC) and then getting its message ID with a script. Is this &

more than one FCC possible?

Dear all, My goal is to get the message ID from a message I just sent. One way I am thinking of doing this is copying a message to a temporary file (via FCC) and then getting its message ID with a script. Is this possible? I would like to do this instead of setting "record" because I w

Re: mutt Applies fcc-hooks Inconsistently

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 13:46:42 -0700, Gary Johnson wrote: > The mutt manual describes this behavior of the fcc-hook in the > section, "Specify Default Fcc: Mailbox When Composing", as > > Mutt searches the initial list of message recipients for the > first

Re: mutt Applies fcc-hooks Inconsistently

uot;. The other type of hook invokes an operation that can be performed only once per event or that can set only one value per event. An example of that type would be the fcc-hook. You can set only one fcc: mailbox per message. Therefore, when searching the list of fcc-hooks, mutt sets the fcc: mail

Re: mutt Applies fcc-hooks Inconsistently

The one you marked as working, doesn't have the dot escaped. All the other ones do? -mg On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 06:15:22PM +0100, Koralatov wrote: > I'm trying to use fcc-hooks to disregard e-mails that I'm sending where > I'll automatically be delivered back a copy

Re: how do disable Fcc?

* glphvgacs [02-02-14 15:08]: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:45:51PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:41]: > > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:27:34PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:09]: > > > > > right now i have: > > > > > set record = /de

Re: how do disable Fcc?

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:53:57PM +0100, Rejo Zenger wrote: > Untested, but I presume "unset record" will work. nice, thanks.

Re: how do disable Fcc?

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:45:51PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:41]: > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:27:34PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:09]: > > > > right now i have: > > > > set record = /dev/null > > > > > > > > but i have a feelin

Re: how do disable Fcc?

++ 02/02/14 14:06 -0500 - glphvgacs: >right now i have: >set record = /dev/null > >but i have a feeling that's not the canonical way of doing this. any >suggestions? Untested, but I presume "unset record" will work. -- Rejo Zenger . . 0x21DBEFD4 . GPG encrypted e-mail p

Re: how do disable Fcc?

* glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:41]: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:27:34PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:09]: > > > right now i have: > > > set record = /dev/null > > > > > > but i have a feeling that's not the canonical way of doing this. any > > > suggestions? > > > > us

Re: how do disable Fcc?

On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:27:34PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:09]: > > right now i have: > > set record = /dev/null > > > > but i have a feeling that's not the canonical way of doing this. any > > suggestions? > > use the force, luke > > check "man muttrc" and loo

Re: how do disable Fcc?

* glphvgacs [02-02-14 14:09]: > right now i have: > set record = /dev/null > > but i have a feeling that's not the canonical way of doing this. any > suggestions? use the force, luke check "man muttrc" and look for record -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptil

how do disable Fcc?

right now i have: set record = /dev/null but i have a feeling that's not the canonical way of doing this. any suggestions?

FCC-SAVE-HOOK with ~B

I try to set a fcc-save-hook to save all messages that math to: Cotacao or cotacao or Cotação or cotação or Cotaçao or Cotacão ... or Quotacao or quotacao or Quotação ... in any message fields (subject, body, to, cc, Ccc) to ~/Mail/Cotacao/Inbox I created the folders ~/Mail/Cotacao/Inbox I set

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

On Dec 09, 2011 at 12:05 AM +0100, Eric Smith wrote: But this will not match if the mail is From: foo and To: bar, baz You'll just need to add a couple more hooks to catch all the cases. It's really all explained in the manual. fcc-save-hook '~f foo ~C bar ~C baz&

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

> >What is the smartest way to specify this logic with an > >fcc-save-hook? > > If I understand correctly, the following should do it. It's a hook > that has all three recipients in the To: or CC: fields which sets > the fcc/save folder to 'project_folder',

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

On Dec 08, 2011 at 08:15 AM -0500, Tim Gray wrote: On Dec 08, 2011 at 12:08 PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote: Thanks Tim but the condition is AND not OR. All three addresses need to be present in random order in the To: or Oops. Just take that the |'s then. If you just place several search modifi

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

On Dec 08, 2011 at 10:39 PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote: So if it is a mail from one of three names and the other two names are in ~C (To: or Cc:), then it is a match. What is the smartest way to specify this logic with an fcc-save-hook? If I understand correctly, the following should do it. It&#

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

modifiers together, a logical AND is assumed. Thanks, but I still cannot find a pattern modifier that specifies So if it is a mail from one of three names and the other two names are in ~C (To: or Cc:), then it is a match. What is the smartest way to specify thi

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

On Dec 08, 2011 at 12:08 PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote: Thanks Tim but the condition is AND not OR. All three addresses need to be present in random order in the To: or Oops. Just take that the |'s then. If you just place several search modifiers together, a logical AND is assumed.

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

resses in > >the To: and Cc:, then I want to automatically save to a specific > >folder. > > Well, you can either string together a bunch of criteria with 'ors' > and use the ~C pattern: > > fcc-save-hook '~C name1 | ~C name2 | ~C name3' foler_n

Re: fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

~C pattern: fcc-save-hook '~C name1 | ~C name2 | ~C name3' foler_name or you can put all the addresses in a group and just use the %C pattern: fcc-save-hook '%C groupname' folder_name The first is probably more direct.

fcc-save-hook for multiple recipients

If a sent or received mail has a certain list of email addresses in the To: and Cc:, then I want to automatically save to a specific folder. How would I implement this? -- - Eric Smith

patterns and fcc-save-hook

ally to my save_hook file. Is there a way to use patters to achieve this automatically? Here's roughly what I would write it in regexp language: fcc-save-hook "([a-z\.]+)@work.com" "=work/\1" That syntax probably doesn't fly with mutt (or does it), but you probably g

Re: fcc-hook: how to tame it?

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Jimmy Wu wrote: > > Another idea is to unhook fcc-hook inside your profile.mymail1. > Yeah! set 'unhook fcc-hook' in the profile.mymail1 solved the issue! Thank you very much! Marcelo

  1   2   3   4   >