David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>Of course, if you already have one, then it probably *is* the easier way
>to go ;-)
It is, believe me :) And you wouldn't believe the amount of spam it
attracts :)
>I'd probably be of about the same viewpoint, since I do, too (I counted
>them the othe
Suresh --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
%
% >What, you can make a dummy login that can handle mail addressed to
% >anyone, but not a script? Just put the script in /usr/local/bin and
% >let the calling user (you know, that guy who pipes
David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>What, you can make a dummy login that can handle mail addressed to
>anyone, but not a script? Just put the script in /usr/local/bin and
>let the calling user (you know, that guy who pipes it a message) provide
>the From: info without even trying!
Yep
Suresh --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
%
% >The "script" method, I hope :-) Yeah, once the script exists, it's easy
% >enough for anyone to use it.
%
% Making local copies of the script for every user would be tedious, to say
% the leas
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:32:35AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> >The "script" method, I hope :-) Yeah, once the script exists, it's easy
> >enough for anyone to use it.
>
> Making local copies of the script for every user would be tedious,
David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>The "script" method, I hope :-) Yeah, once the script exists, it's easy
>enough for anyone to use it.
Making local copies of the script for every user would be tedious, to say
the least :) So, the dummy login :)
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr a
Suresh --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
%
% >message to a script that generates a boilerplate message using the
% >existing subject and sends it to whoiever is in the DSN and RRT fields?
%
% Can do - I was thinking of setting this up for
David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>Procmail is still good for this, but why bother with the dummy account?
>Why not just pipe thru procmail and call a specific procmailrc that pipes
>the message to the autoresponder -- or, in fact, why not just pipe the
>message to a script that generates
Antione, Suresh, et al --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
%
% >> Procmail is better for this imho. Set up a dummy account on your local
% >> box, which has a procmailrc set to return an autoack to the sender -
% >> bounce it to that ac
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 03:43:05PM +0200, Frank Derichsweiler wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 03:21:36PM +0200, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > Yes thank you, I understand better now, I just have to do a macro that bounce
> > to that dummy user, but I'm not root, so I need another solution :(
>
> What
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 03:21:36PM +0200, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Yes thank you, I understand better now, I just have to do a macro that bounce
> to that dummy user, but I'm not root, so I need another solution :(
What kind of MTA is on your box? If qmail, you should be able to use
the address-ex
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:42:37PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> >> Procmail is better for this imho. Set up a dummy account on your local
> >> box, which has a procmailrc set to return an autoack to the sender -
> >> bounce it to that
Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>> Procmail is better for this imho. Set up a dummy account on your local
>> box, which has a procmailrc set to return an autoack to the sender -
>> bounce it to that account with some keybinding, say.
>>
>> [rube goldberg solution, sort of]
>Yes I
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 06:24:29PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> >> Several mailers implement it in several different ways, though :(
> >When I receive a Mail with one of those headers, I would like to
> >notify the user (if I want, of c
Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>> Several mailers implement it in several different ways, though :(
>When I receive a Mail with one of those headers, I would like to
>notify the user (if I want, of course) that I've read his mail
>with a macro, cause mutt don't seem to implement t
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 05:59:21PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> >Is it possible, when I read a mail A with mutt, to reply this mail
> >with a macro, with body containing the subject of A ?
> >The thing I want to do with this is to autom
Antoine Martin proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>Is it possible, when I read a mail A with mutt, to reply this mail
>with a macro, with body containing the subject of A ?
>The thing I want to do with this is to automatically notify the sender
>of the mail A that I've read his mail
This should, in
Is it possible, when I read a mail A with mutt, to reply this mail
with a macro, with body containing the subject of A ?
The thing I want to do with this is to automatically notify the sender
of the mail A that I've read his mail
Merci beaucoup for any idea
Antoine
18 matches
Mail list logo
