<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Fun with Header Weeding



On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:10:38PM -0500, Allister MacLeod wrote:

> So:
>   ignore *
>   unignore x-
>   ignore x-spam-
>   unignore x-spam-level
> doesn't show X-Spam-Level: because the ignore x-spam- match still
> exists, since the second unignore doesn't match it directly.  At least
> I think this is the way it works..

right

> and I assume that * is treated as a
> special case for which subexpressions can be unignored correctly.

apparently ;-)

> So, I tried being as permissive as possible, by not using * or
> unignore at all, and building a gargantuan ignore list.
> Unfortunately, I discovered that my liking for an uncluttered header
> area far outweighs my curiosity about strange X-Killed-The-Cat
> headers.  So it's back to 'ignore *' 'unignore From To CC Subject'

My list is pretty good, ATM, and I keep adding to it as I discover more
"boring" headers.  I use prefix-matching rather sparingly, so I get to
see almost every "interesting" header that comes my way.

> One thing I thought of was to put together a set of macros that lets
> me change the level of weeding of headers.  That way I could hit H or
> something to change from spartan 4-header mode to show-me-the-X's
> mode, while still keeping out noise like Received headers.

FWIW, I have hooks setup to change the level of weeding depending on
many factors (is it a list message? is it addressed to me? was it sent
by me? was it by my best friend? etc.).  If you just want two or three
hard-coded "levels" of weeding, though, you may be best off putting each
of them in an RC file and then sourcing it in response to your keystroke.

> Before I start, though, I need to know a couple of things.  First,
> what's the best way to do ignore/unignore from a macro?

As I said, if you only want a couple of hard-coded levels, sourcing an
RC file is your best bet.

> Second, if
> I'm doing it in the pager, what's the best way to get the headers to
> be redisplayed?  Just <display-toggle-weed> twice?

It's the way I use.  (Does anybody know a better way?)

 - Dave

-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel

Attachment: pgp11xNWou1gF.pgp
Description: PGP signature