On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote:
> I've just noticed that if you are cycling through the command history
> and abort with a ^G, the next time you invoke the line editor you are
> placed at the point in history list at which you aborted.
>
> example:
>
> :command 1
> :
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> the only quasi-official reference i've been able to find on the
> Mail-Followup-To header is:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
>
> while i think that this becoming standard would
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 01:34]:
| % | > If it really bothers you that much, unset $signature and $sig_dashes and
| % | > then modify your editor command to append your signature file onto the
| % | > temp file after the real editor completes. Note that re-editing a file
| % |
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 01:26]:
[context]
| Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was set to
| ask-yes, but I sure hated mark_old (though I want stuff marked old at
| times) :-)
That was actually the first option I unset ;)
--
René Clerc
Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> > the only quasi-official reference i've been able to find on the
> > Mail-Followup-To header is:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
> There are many
On 2001-12-03 13:36:30 -0600, Aaron Goldblatt wrote:
>So I recompiled: ./configure --with-flock --enable-nfs-fix
Don't use flock for locking mail folders accessed via NFS. Fcntl
was the right thing to do. I'd guess that some part of your NFS
locking is screwed up.
What kind of NFS server a
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it
> % if that is what you are asking.
> Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know
> whether there are "right" and "wrong" ways to implement NF
> I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the
> background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the
> message body, and the main index background is still white on black.
perhaps your $TERM is xterm-color (except for hardcoded applications that
ignore $T
Steve, et al --
...and then Steve Kennedy said...
% On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
%
% > % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it
% > % if that is what you are asking.
% > Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know
> > >
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
> > There are many RFC's in use as "standards" that never got beyond being
> > draft standards "officially" I believe.
> well their point seems to be that since it doesn't appear in rfc 2822,
> it's likely
Cedric Duval wrote:
>
> Even less "official" than the above draft, there is
>
> http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
>
> which gives some arguments about why implementing MFT.
yeah i noticed this one as well, although given the author i decided not
to mention it (although it does make some
Thomas Hurst muttered:
> I've got quite a few folders, but a number of them haven't had any new
> mail for the last few days - is there a function similar to to
> limit the folder view to, for instance, folders with a last modified
> date < 24 hours?
No realy what you want but, don't put them in
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:58:02AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the
> > background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the
> > message body, and the main index background is still white on black.
>
> perhaps yo
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Dave Price wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:58:02AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > > I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the
> > > background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the
> > > message body, and the main index back
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 08:02:12AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Dave Price wrote:
>
> > >
> > > rereading - I addressed the wrong point. You have to use 'default' to
> > > get the background to show through in all cases (except where mutt is
> > > doing the wrong thing, o
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Dave Price wrote:
> It is ncurses:
> Mutt 1.3.23i (2001-10-09)
> System: Linux 2.2.19 [using ncurses 5.2]
I'll have to try building 1.3.23i and see if I can spot the problem (when
I'm at home). I did build one or two of the 1.3.x series, but just to
check on progress...
--
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:11:14 -0700
> To: "Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: color problems after upgrade
> From: Dave Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> also, when i try to set:
>
> color body black default
>
> i get "too few arguments"? hmmm
co
Hi all.
I've got a couple of potential bugs, and some questions on how to
debug/report them.
First, the bugs:
o Mutt seems to be losing track of the number of new messages. Every
now and then, I end up with "New: 1" in the status bar at the bottom
of the screen, but there aren't any n
>
> I'll have to try building 1.3.23i and see if I can spot the problem
(when
> I'm at home). I did build one or two of the 1.3.x series, but just to
> check on progress...
>
setting the color of the normal object to have a default background
makes all the difference.
it is not even necessary
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:26:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not sure how to phrase this
>
> My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so:
>
> X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
> Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 08:30:27PM -0600, David wrote:
> I think that this is exactly the problem... I dont know if you are on
> linux, but in my mounts through NIS to an HPUX machine from linux, I use
> a 'nolock' option that disables attempting to lock over NFS, and I just
> use dotlocking. I d
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> ...and then Paul Brannan said...
> % macro index $ ':set delete=ask-yes:set delete=no'
> %
> % All I get is a beep, and delete remains set to "ask-yes".
>
> That makes sense. Your macro sets it to ask-yes and then tries to sync
> th
Paul --
...and then Paul Brannan said...
% On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
% > ...and then Paul Brannan said...
% > % macro index $ ':set delete=ask-yes:set delete=no'
% > %
% > % All I get is a beep, and delete remains set to "ask-yes".
% >
% > That makes sense. Y
I have set followup_to in my .muttrc, I have subscribe set (although
only with the first part of the list name, i.e. cvs-all not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list-reply works fine, but for some reason mutt .24
isn't setting Mail-Followup-To.
Is it only set in original mails, not replies?
Hm, it is being se
Nah, actually the IMAP server is Cyrus IMAP on Linux.
> Is the IMAP server running on Windows? Looks like a CR/LF problem to me.
>
>
> --
> David Smith Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 (direct)
> STMicroelectronicsFax: +44 (0)1454 617910
> 1000 Aztec WestTINA (ST only
I was just at ftp.mutt.org and was trying to download the source code. For somereason
it would only let me download 59 percent of it. The expected size was 2.4 megs and I
would only get 850 kb. I was just wondering if I am doing something wrong or is there
another place to get it at? I have
On (30/11/01 10:45), Paul Brannan wrote:
> 1) How can I refresh the current inbox? The 'G' key seems to be
>POP-specific (I'm using IMAP).
Try $
> 2) Can I set up vim to place the cursor in the "To" field automatically
>when composing a message?
Probably, but I don't know how...
--
H
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:24:00PM -0500, David T-G
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was set to
> ask-yes, but I sure hated mark_old (though I want stuff marked old at
> times) :-)
There is an patch which leaves messages marked old marked old
* Jeff Brodnax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 18:59]:
| I was just at ftp.mutt.org and was trying to download the source
| code. For somereason it would only let me download 59 percent of it.
| The expected size was 2.4 megs and I would only get 850 kb. I was
| just wondering if I am doing som
* Nicolas Rachinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 19:27]:
| On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:24:00PM -0500, David T-G
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was set to
| > ask-yes, but I sure hated mark_old (though I want stuff marked old at
| > tim
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes. this seems like kind of a bad idea to me, and something best
> left to MUAs - even if they are slow to adopt this, it seems as if
> enforcing this in an MTA might cause some problems. for instance if
> i set the 'Reply-To' header to my address, bu
> >So I recompiled: ./configure --with-flock --enable-nfs-fix
> Don't use flock for locking mail folders accessed via NFS. Fcntl
> was the right thing to do. I'd guess that some part of your NFS
> locking is screwed up.
For the benefit of the archives, I resolved the issue by disabling both
Josh Huber wrote:
> Will Yardley writes:
>
> Er, a few points:
>
> 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically,
>you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you
>add addresses to this list, the header won't get generated.
true, however if your
* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 21:22]:
| Josh Huber wrote:
| > Will Yardley writes:
| >
| > Er, a few points:
| >
| > 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically,
| >you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you
| >add address
Ren? Clerc wrote:
>
> I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will
> be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it
> is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive that
> would cause this behaviour...
yeah you're correct about 're
* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 21:52]:
| Ren? Clerc wrote:
| >
| > I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will
| > be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it
| > is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive th
On 2001-12-04 (Tuesday) at 21:40:40 +0100, René Clerc wrote:
> * Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 21:22]:
> | Josh Huber wrote:
> | >
> | > 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically,
> | >you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you
Ren? Clerc wrote:
> * Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 21:52]:
> | Ren? Clerc wrote:
> | yeah you're correct about 'reply' - my bad. however group-reply i'm
> | pretty sure honors MFT... if i select group-reply, in response to your
> | mail, it is just addressed to the mutt list.
>
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ren? Clerc wrote:
>
>> Then you probably have set ignore_list_reply_to=yes (where no = default)
>
> i don't.
>
> zugzug [~]% grep -ri ignore_list_reply .mutt*
> zugzug [~]%
A better test might be
:set ?ignore_list_reply_to
inside of Mutt.
> yes i
* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 22:41]:
[...]
| besides, i don't think you had reply-to set on your message anyway...
| hitting group-reply still honors MFT i'm pretty sure.
You don't have to have a Reply-To header in order for group-reply to
work, do you?
--
René Clerc
* Mark Sheppard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 22:11]:
| > | true, however if your admin were to add this list to the server (say for
| > | internal lists, or common lists) then you would have no way to change
| > | this (assuming you do not have root access on the machine). if it's
| > | your
* Samuel Padgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 22:43]:
| Mutt should generate the MFT header based on the people you've
| included in the To: and Cc: headers. If you remove the improperly
| Cc-ed individual from the Cc: header, Mutt should not put that
| person in the MFT header.
I completely
Something else that strikes me:
591 r Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 38) mq>
592 s> Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 74) mq>
593 rs Dec 04 Mark Sheppard( 41) tq>
594 S> Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 50) x mq>
595
Hello Mutt-Users
First of all: I love mutt. It really rocks.
Ok. Lets get down to business. I tried to create a small script which
automatically verifies pgp-signed mails from mutt. I have a
mailinglist-archive for all of the mailinglists I get. But I want to
verify the signatures when the mails
Rene --
...and then Ren? Clerc said...
% Something else that strikes me:
Whack!
%
%
%
...
% 593 rs Dec 04 Mark Sheppard( 41) tq>
% 594 S> Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 50) x mq>
% 595 S Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 42) mq
Jeff --
...and then Jeff Brodnax said...
% I was just at ftp.mutt.org and was trying to download the source code. For
somereason it would only let me download 59 percent of it. The expected size was 2.4
megs and I would only get 850 kb. I was just wondering if I am doing something wrong
or
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 23:41]:
| Rene --
|
| ...and then Ren? Clerc said...
(see below)
| Did you postpone in the middle of that message? If you postpone, you
| must be in the same mailbox when you recall and complete in order for the
| flag to be properly updated.
That
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:49:46PM +0100, René Clerc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Nicolas Rachinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 19:27]:
>
> | On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:24:00PM -0500, David T-G
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was
On 011204, at 21:42:48, Gerhard Siegesmund wrote
> [...] I tried to create a small script which automatically
> verifies pgp-signed mails from mutt. [...] It already works with
> inline-signatures. Simple script, simple output. For the
> mime-signed mails it doesn't work. :-(
>
> Signed mail i
Rene, et al --
...and then Ren? Clerc said...
% * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04-12-2001 23:41]:
%
% | Rene --
% |
% | ...and then Ren? Clerc said...
...
% | % --
% | % René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
%
% Hmm... you still seem to find three ways to spell my name ;)
I
Greetings,
Can anyone tell me why this:
bind pager \e exit
Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it
actually quits the pager?
For example, arrow over the message in the list, hit enter, view
message, hit Esc, one-one-thousand, message returns to full-view index.
Is there a way to exit Mutt directly from the browser? After "c
", "q" just takes me back to the "Open mailbox" prompt.
The help doesn't reveal any other promising commands. I'm running
Mutt 1.3.24i and have "quit" set to "yes".
Thanks,
Sam
--
It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar p
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:48:35PM -0500, Brian Clark wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Can anyone tell me why this:
>
> bind pager \e exit
>
> Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it
> actually quits the pager?
>
Yes I can tell you.
Esc is a lead in to many other commands
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:20:05AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:48:35PM -0500, Brian Clark wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Can anyone tell me why this:
> >
> > bind pager \e exit
> >
> > Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it
> > actua
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:46:39PM -0500, Samuel Padgett wrote:
> Is there a way to exit Mutt directly from the browser? After "c
> ", "q" just takes me back to the "Open mailbox" prompt.
> The help doesn't reveal any other promising commands. I'm running
> Mutt 1.3.24i and have "quit" set to "
* Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Dec 04. 2001 23:22]:
> > bind pager \e exit
> >
> > Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it
> > actually quits the pager?
> >
> Yes I can tell you.
> Esc is a lead in to many other commands.
> The delay is to see if anything
On Wed, Dec 5, 2001, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:46:39PM -0500, Samuel Padgett wrote:
> > Is there a way to exit Mutt directly from the browser? After "c
> > ", "q" just takes me back to the "Open mailbox" prompt.
> > The help doesn't reveal any other promising commands.
> > The meaning of "q" is context dependent.
>
> Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'.
What about CTRL-C...? Seems to work everywhere...
KEN
--
Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/
"They that can give up essential liberty
Ken Weingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'.
Key is not bound. Press '?' for help.
Hm.
Sam
--
It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar player in the world.
If you're not enlightened, forget it. -- George Harrison
Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about CTRL-C...? Seems to work everywhere...
If I delete a message in a mailbox, type "c ?", then quit with
"C-c", Mutt doesn't purge the deleted message :-(
Sam
--
It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar player in the world.
If you'
On Wed, Dec 5, 2001, Samuel Padgett wrote:
> Ken Weingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'.
>
> Key is not bound. Press '?' for help.
>
> Hm.
Weird. I never touched those in my muttrc, so they are default for
me.
Qquit
Not sure how to phrase this
My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so:
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4, 2001^M
This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that it seems to be
sc
* On Tue Dec 04, Jason Rashaad Jackson wrote:
> My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so:
>
> X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M
> Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4, 2001^M
If you're using fetchmail to retreive your e-mai
63 matches
Mail list logo
