On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:45 +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Volker Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2000:
>
Hi Mikko, hi list
Thank you for the help- it seems to work now.
Especially Mikko's hints about the Maildir structure were helpful.
Now there is another problem I got. I ha
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000, Martin Keseg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
|
| Is here a way to set mutt as mailer in lynx ?
This is more of a lynx question, than a mutt one, but since I recently
detailed the current method on the lynx-dev list, I'll post it here as
well, since it may be of some general intere
Hi Volker,
I had a similar problem when swapping to mutt and linux. I just moved the windows mail
directory into the linux mail directory where all my mail folders resided. This seemed
to work for me.
It's probably better to copy the folder first before moving, in case it doesn't work.
Once a
> Background: I'd like to write a perl script whose input is a
> mail folder, and the script looks at each individual email's
> message-id and do something with it (if it sees a duplicate,
> then ignore the duplicate, etc). If it doesn't find one,
> what should be done?
No need for the perl mon
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:18:21PM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 2000-01-12 16:08:06 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > > information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. can
> >
> > Mutt doesn't do this. Setup something like procmail.
>
> however there's at least one val
Can mutt be used to access usenet servers?
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
=> Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <=
http://www.smcinnovations.com
I haven't been using mutt for a long time yet. So I'm wondering if I
have some setting wrong or the like. In the folder list the 'N' (new)
flag is shown for all folders with new messages. However, once I
open a folder, the 'N' flag goes away in the folder list, no matter
whether I still have unrea
Several times over the past two weeks, I have had occasion to send mail to folks
who, for whatever perverse reason, get their e-mail accounts through
AOL. Two separate people have thus told me that they have repeatedly not
received mail sent to them from mutt (or bounced again, later), though
when
Alex Lane writes:
> Several times over the past two weeks, I have had occasion to send mail to folks
> who, for whatever perverse reason, get their e-mail accounts through
> AOL. Two separate people have thus told me that they have repeatedly not
> received mail sent to them from mutt (or bounced
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> client with e.g. fetchmail feeding procmail (perhaps via
> local MTA);
>
> then you have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think if there was an option which would cause commands on tagged
> messages (initiated with ;) to simply do nothing if there was no tagged
> message, then it might work. I had a go at changing this behaviour in
> the source, but failed. (No wonder, C is
Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A limitation of the goal... that's a new one to me!
>
> If you specify your goals as:
>
> (1) You don't have a login on the mail server, and so can't
> filter at delivery with procmail/maildrop/mailagent/...;
> (2) You only access the
Alex,
I do this all the time (my wife is on AOL and I bounce items of
interest to her). I haven't had any problem. AOL can send and
receive normal e-mail over the Internet. I have heard reports of
e-mail taking hours to a day to make it in or out of AOL.
Jeffrey
Quoting Alex Lane <[EMAIL PR
Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And if he still thinks it's too hard, he can always use
> "dotconfigurator". I don't have it's URL here, but it wouldn't be hard
> to find it.
I don't know if it was The Dotfile Generator you thought of. The URL of this
program is here: http://www.imada.o
2000-01-13-18:37:20 Matthew Hawkins:
> On 2000-01-13 12:54:07 -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > But this isn't a limitation of the implementation, it's a limit of
> > the goal specified. Better not to go there.
>
> A limitation of the goal... that's a new one to me!
If you specify your goals as:
2000-01-14-11:07:57 Mikko Hänninen:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> > (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> > (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> > client with e.g. fetchmail feeding procmail (perhaps via
> >
2000-01-13-15:21:22 Bill Bradford:
> Mutt is supposed to automatically detect Maildir-format mailboxes.. however,
> when I fire it up (v.1.0), it just gives me an error of
> "/var/spool/mail/mrbill: No such file or directory (errno = 2)".
>
> I've added the following line to my .muttrc:
>
> set
On Friday, 14 January 2000 at 18:07, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> > (2) You only access the email via POP or IMAP; and
> > (3) You don't want to download the email and keep it on the
> > client with e.g. fetchmail feeding pro
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:54:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> Did I miss some setting or is there any trick?
No. What I tend to do when I've had a read in a folder and want it to appear
as having received new email after I leave is to pop over to an xterm and do
a "touch -m" o
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 05:43:22PM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote:
> The `lists' command specifies the mailing lists to which you are subscribed.
> Since the purpose of the mail-followup-to field is to affect a group reply,
> there is no reason to put your own email address in there since you are
> a
Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> Hmm, actually, that's a thought. I wonder if it would be possible to come up
> with a little patch for mutt that, given a preference setting, would do the
> equivalent of "touch -m" if you leave a folder while messages still have the
>
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> Either Mail-FollowUp-To: should _only_ include the list, or it should include
> everybody which includes me. Because the first isn't always possible (we have
> no way of knowing which people are actually in which list) I think the second
Mark Mielke [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 05:43:22PM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote:
> > The `lists' command specifies the mailing lists to which you are subscribed.
> > Since the purpose of the mail-followup-to field is to affect a group reply,
> > there is no reason to put yo
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 07:32:41PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> > Hmm, actually, that's a thought. I wonder if it would be possible to come up
> > with a little patch for mutt that, given a preference setting, would do the
> > equival
Toby Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2000:
> Is there a way to do something similar in mutt (prompt for a filename,
> and then run a script with that filename as the argument) ?
No, you can't create custom prompts, or can't create custom variables
(or even read the values of exi
Volker Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> Now there is another problem I got. I have several (ie. *lots* of)
> mail in my old Outlook folders- a kind of an archive. Is it
> possible to get them (without forwarding them each one by one) into
> my new mutt directory tree?
I ha
* Alex Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000114 13:42]:
> Several times over the past two weeks, I have had occasion to send mail to folks
> who, for whatever perverse reason, get their e-mail accounts through
> AOL. Two separate people have thus told me that they have repeatedly not
> received mail sent
On 14-Jan-2000, Subba Rao wrote:
> Can mutt be used to access usenet servers?
AFAIK, not directly. I don't really think it's Mutt's job to _fetch_
news or mails. I use fetchmail to fetch my mails, and newsfetch to
fetch my news.
Now, if only Mutt support "Newsgroups:" header, and then post to
ne
Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
> I do that often. Mut can be configured to don't tag messages as
> OLD. The line is:
>
> set nomark_old
The problem with that is that it makes Mutt lose the distinction of new
and old, not just stop marking messages as old. (I think.)
Hi!
>--[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm having the exact same problem.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-13.01.00-000/
It might not by chance be the case that AOL is executing an UDP for
excite@home (that is home.com, where your mail comes from) that is supposed
not to star
Rüdiger Kuhlmann [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >--[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm having the exact same problem.
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-13.01.00-000/
>
> It might not by chance be the case that AOL is executing an UDP for
> excite@home (that is home.com, wher
Hi!
>--[Jeremy Blosser]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Rüdiger Kuhlmann [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > >--[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I'm having the exact same problem.
> > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-13.01.00-000/
> > It might not by chance be the case that AOL is execu
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 07:41:52PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
>> Either Mail-FollowUp-To: should _only_ include the list, or it
>> should include everybody which includes me. Because the first isn't
>> always possible (we have no way o
Mark Mielke [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The thing is... this makes perfect sense for 'L'ist reply... but not
> for 'g'roup reply. There _is_ a difference.
Yes, there is. 'L'ist reply replies to just the one address that is the
list, while 'g'roup reply replies to all To: and Cc: addresses, thou
At 07:04 -0600 14 Jan 2000, Alex Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several times over the past two weeks, I have had occasion to send mail to folks
> who, for whatever perverse reason, get their e-mail accounts through
> AOL. Two separate people have thus told me that they have repeatedly not
> re
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 05:36:05PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> The purpose of this field is to prevent you from receiving duplicate copies
> of replies to messages which you send by specifying that you will receive a
> copy of the message if it is addressed to the mailing list (and thus there
>
* Aaron Schrab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000114 18:59]:
> At 07:04 -0600 14 Jan 2000, Alex Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Several times over the past two weeks, I have had occasion to send mail to folks
> > who, for whatever perverse reason, get their e-mail accounts through
> > AOL. Two separate
Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I KNOW what the documented behaviour for mutt is. What I was
> explaining was why I always use 'g'roup reply instead of 'L'ist reply.
I have also more-or-less abandoned the List-Reply function within Mutt.
I participate in a few mailing lists which mos
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 12:19:08PM +, Lars Hecking wrote:
> No need for the perl monster. procmail+formail can do it nicely,
> and examples for what you want to do are more than likely in the
> procmailex(5) man page.
True enough - but if one is filtering duplicates based on message IDs,
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 06:12:48PM -0600 or thereabouts, David DeSimone wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I KNOW what the documented behaviour for mutt is. What I was
> > explaining was why I always use 'g'roup reply instead of 'L'ist reply.
>
> I have also more-or-less aba
Thomas Ribbrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 15 Jan 2000:
> True enough - but if one is filtering duplicates based on message IDs, it
> won't work for sent mail (i.e. the local copies of mail you sent yourself),
> as those don't have any message ID.
Except of course if you sent the email wit
41 matches
Mail list logo
