Hello to all,
I am constructing a mutt macro which shall pipe the text/plain message
to a script that processes the markdown formatting and inserts the HTML
output into the HTML template. This so far works well.
However, it would be beneficial to get an option to pipe with the
arguments such as $
Is there a way to completely disable the shell-escape feature?
Hi Guy,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
>
> The usage of "-c ':r !cat /tmp/file'" does solve the issue of
> editing two files, but, I cannot seem to get the send-hook correct,
> and depending on how/where I place my quotes, I get different
> errors. -
> Which is troubli
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 11:38:24AM +0200, s...@thetabiz.com wrote:
> I am thinking of something like: |process_email.pl %from %to %subject
That question of me, relates to piping the attachment rather, not a
whole message.
* On 09 May 2014, Shawn Zaidermann wrote:
> Is there a way to completely disable the shell-escape feature?
You can unbind the key (or bind it to no-op), but the user can still
rebind it unless you also remove the enter-command binding (preventing
them from entering a bind command). Also ensure t
On Fri,May 09 02:58:PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
> In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead
> of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single
> quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the
> whole "set editor=..." bit.
Thank y
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
> send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat
> /path/to/file\""'
Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
--
JR
On Fri,May 09 03:14:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
> * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
> > send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat
> > /path/to/file\""'
>
> Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
>
> vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
Yes, and no.
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]:
> If," vim -c ':r /path/to/file' " is used, what happens in mutt
> is, vim gets two files to edit, "/path/to/file" and
> /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited.
Not at all. Did you try it?
You would have two files to edit if you did:
vim -c ":e /path/to/file"
or
vim /p
