how to set Bcc: based on From: ?

2017-06-29 Thread Job Snijders
Dear mutt users, I have a bunch of email addresses that end up in a single Maildir INBOX. For each email that I send out I like to send a Bcc somewhere. I use the use_from feature to have mutt select a sensible From: address when I reply to received email. set use_from set reverse

Mutt - Neomutt and Debian Stretch

2017-06-29 Thread leo
Hi everybody, I'm writing because I've a question about Mutt and Neomutt on Debian. My operating system is actually Debian Stable (Stretch) and I've installed the mutt package (1.7.2-1). How can you see here [1] when you install Mutt, the repository automatically install Neomutt. I've read that

Re: Mutt - Neomutt and Debian Stretch

2017-06-29 Thread steve
Hi leo, I have the same setup as you do (debian stretch+mutt). On [1], one can read: This package is built with the NeoMutt patchset, which includes a number of additional features compared to the stock Mutt. Which I don't interpret as you do; debian's mutt is compiled with the NeoMutt patchse

Re: Mutt - Neomutt and Debian Stretch

2017-06-29 Thread Francesco Ariis
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:19:27PM +0200, steve wrote: > Hi leo, > > I have the same setup as you do (debian stretch+mutt). > > On [1], one can read: > > This package is built with the NeoMutt patchset, which includes a number > of additional features compared to the stock Mutt. > > Which I don

Re: Mutt - Neomutt and Debian Stretch

2017-06-29 Thread Kevin J. McCarthy
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, leo wrote: > I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes > into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept" [2]. No, it's a fork. And no, they don't get features into a state I will accept. > It isn't a big prob

Re: Mutt - Neomutt and Debian Stretch

2017-06-29 Thread leo
Hi everybody, thanks a lot for all your answer. > > I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes > > into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept" > > [2]. > > No, it's a fork. And no, they don't get features into a state I will > accept. Ok, thank