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
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.
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_re
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 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
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
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: "
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 ki
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: " in front of the subject line; further
er hooks I have:
>
> [ '~/.mutt/hook-folder' ]---
>
> folder_hook . 'set strict_threads=yes; \
> set sort_re=yes; \
>set
> reply_r
Hi Michelle!
On Do, 23 Apr 2009, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> Now I can not get the regexp to thread this pigs:
What exactly has the reply_regexp to do with threading?
>
> 117 - 2,5K 2009-01-31 16:31:35 [mc-forum] Counterfit copy of nic
> 118 - 2,0K 2009-01-3
---
folder_hook . 'set strict_threads=yes; \
set sort_re=yes; \
set
reply_regexp="^(re([\\[0-9\\]+])*|aw|RE):[ \t]*"'
folder_hook .ML_electronic.Microchip'set strict_threads=no; \
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.
>
>
\[[^]]+\] *)?)*'
> > does not work in mutt.
>
> 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 and pasted
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_regex
Hi,
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. I tested it using perl and it worked perfectly
matching the list and the Re: part of the subje
ge from me with the subject "Hello" would come back with a subject
of "Re: Hello (See Notice Below)", which doesn't get recognized as a
reply to my original message by mutt. The last time I asked about this,
about three years ago, I was told that there was no way to creat
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
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):
>
>
Moin,
On 00-12-18, Josh Huber wrote:
[-- PGP-Ausgabe folgt (aktuelle Zeit: Mon Dec 18 19:26:05 2000) --]
gpg: Unterschrift vom Mon 18 Dez 2000 17:59:07 CET, DSA Schlüssel ID 6B21489A
gpg: FALSCHE Unterschrift von "Josh Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
[-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --]
That would be:
gpg: WR
..) pattern.
>
> The regexp which finally works for me is now
>
> set reply_regexp=
>'^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?((re([\\[0-9\\]+])*|aw):[ \t]*)?+[ \t]*'
That's interesting, because the one I posted works fine for me, and
the default mutt reply_regexp doesn't d
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 08:53:49PM +0100, Josh Huber wrote:
> Is this necessary? I'm using:
>
> set reply_regexp=
> '^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*'
>
> and it's threading mailing lists of this type for me...
>
> for exa
;we" could add
> > a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to
> > ignore when threading messages.
>
> Is this necessary? I'm using:
>
> set reply_regexp=
> '^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*'
>
> and it's
change the internals of
> mutt to recognize this sort of mangled subject. Perhaps "we" could add
> a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to
> ignore when threading messages.
Is this necessary? I'm using:
set reply_regexp=
'^(\[[a-z0
m here, as I understand it, is that mutt expects reply
subjects to be of the form
But certain list servers construct original subjects like this
[ifc-ml:]
and replies like this
[ifc-ml:] Re:
Note that part of the parent subject line has been removed from the
reply subjec
TED]>
> To: Mutt User List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: special reply_regexp
> Mail-Followup-To: Laurent Pelecq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mutt User List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:37:41AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote:
> > Hi
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:37:41AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would like
> to sort the msgs as threads.
>
> With the default reply_regexp this does not work, because the mailing
> list always puts a strin
Hi,
in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would like
to sort the msgs as threads.
With the default reply_regexp this does not work, because the mailing
list always puts a string "[ifc-ml:] " at the beginning of the subject
line of each msg. is an increas
French versions of Lotus Notes put a 'Réf. :' as a reply
marker. It seems I cannot handle it with reply_regexp. Could this be
because the 'é' is encoded in the header ? Maybe mutt should do the
checking against decoded headers.
--
Erwan DAVID| Domaine
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
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
Hi!
I have in my .muttrc
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?
BTW, I use Mutt 0.93.2i.
TIA.
--
37 matches
Mail list logo
