* David DeSimone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000203 22:29]:
> > What I want is for mutt to set the From: field when I reply to a message
> > to the same address as the To: field in the original message.
>
> There is a 'reverse_name' option you can enable to do this.
>
> You will need to make sure that
can anyone tell me if, and how to set up mutt to be run in eterm? i was just using
xterm before, but now i would like to use eterm with trans on (if possible). when i
try to run mutt in eterm it gives me this message:
unknown terminal: /usr/bin/Eterm
check the TERM environment variable.
also
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:07:06AM +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
> New challenge:
>
> My box is set with my email addr as [EMAIL PROTECTED], because that's what I
> want when I just get lazy and pipe things into mail, and when I reply to
> news postings using slrn and such. However, for mutt I want th
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:06:56PM -0500, Jim Breton wrote:
> I'm using gpg 1.0.0 with the IDEA and RSA modules loaded. It was all
> compiled from source.
>
> Same goes for PGP 5.01.
>
> With GPG as my "pgp_default_version" I have no problem decrypting
> and verifying signatures and messages ma
I am using IMAP for all messages including the inbox. I want it so that
whenever messages have been read in the inbox they are saved automatically
to the imap directory INBOX.read
I have tried setting move=yes but it doesnt move them to the folder on the
IMAP server, I have even changed it to
How may I best send an attachment to certain recipients and not others
all receiving the the same email?
thanx
--
Eric Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
00 27 21 4265311
The fact that something is "tried and tested", says nothing about whether
it has been found to actually work or not.
Eric Smith writes:
> How may I best send an attachment to certain recipients and not others
> all receiving the the same email?
Write the email message into a text file email.txt and
$ mutt -s subject recip1 recip2 recip3 ...
> Does "{,m}" mean "{0,m}" or "{1,m}"? I don't know; I haven't looked at
> the source to tell.
I would assume (from my understanding of English) that it should be
"{0,m}". If not, the manual shoould be changed to reflect this.
randy
--
Five hundred, twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes, h
I'm wondering if this is a bug or something. I am sorting my index by
threads/reverse-date-received, and any time I source my .muttrc the
order of my index (message list) is reversed.
If I re-read the mailbox (c ! for example) the listing returns to
normal.
Is it supposed to do this?
How about setting:
export TERM=xterm
prior to running Mutt?
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:19:14AM -0500, mike irwin wrote:
> can anyone tell me if, and how to set up mutt to be run in eterm? i was just using
>xterm before, but now i would like to use eterm with trans on (if possible). when i
I've specified my 'mailboxes' in my .muttrc, and when using 'c' to change
mailboxes, mutt (v.1.0) always defaults to the _first_ mailbox with new
mail. Is there a way to make the default the _next_ mailbox instead?
i.e. mailboxes = 'a b c d e'
I read all the mail in 'a', 'b', and 'c'. While re
Jim Breton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm wondering if this is a bug or something. I am sorting my index by
> threads/reverse-date-received, and any time I source my .muttrc the
> order of my index (message list) is reversed.
>
> If I re-read the mailbox (c ! for example) the listing returns to
> n
Jeffery Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 02 Feb 2000:
> ^G group-replyreply to all recipients
>
> However, when I type ^G nothing happens. I am running mutt in an xterm
> window on a Sun/Solaris7/OpenWindows platform.
>
> Does anyone have a suggestion as to w
ello everyone,
I've tried a few things and can't sem to get Mutt 1.0.1i to do something
i'd like, although i'm sure it's possible. The archives didn't seem to
have it either, so i turn to the list.
i have to put a send-hook command for each variable i'd like to set,
when i'm sure i can use one
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:51:25AM -0600, Christopher Uy wrote:
>
> Does this happen with any message you sign, no matter how simple it
> is? I know I had problems verifying signatures for a while, but the
> problem was intermittent and ultimately turned out to be related to a
> procmail bug and
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:01:05PM -0600, freix wrote:
> send-hook .* 'unset pgp_autoencrypt'
> send-hook '~t ^user@host\.domain\.com$' 'set pgp_autoencrypt'
> send-hook '~t ^user@host\.domain\.com$' 'set pgp_autosign'
>
> Is the only way I seem to be able to achieve both. Any variation of
> syn
Sigh... I have to say, I've been discovering PGP/MIME to be quite a
problem. :-( There has to be something which can be done about this.
Here are problems I've encountered:
1) PGP/MIME signed documents don't work well with Outlook Express. In
particular, it seems to think the plaintext has to be
17 matches
Mail list logo
