Vlad -- ...and then Vlad Ghitulescu said... % % * Laas Toom <laas.toom@xxxxxxxx> [2004-05-04 19:32]: % > ... % > But this is most definitely the wrong approach, so do not use it ;) % I hope, it is not so foolish to ask: why is it so wrong to want to sent % all the mails at once, whitout to re-open each of them? Never foolish to ask; please do. It's not so much that sending them all at once later is bad, and it's not so much that not wanting to have to handle the emails is bad, but that the approach you've described is bad. What all of these various esc-e macro writers haven't noted, AFAICT, is that you're then left with the originally-postponed copy that didn't get sent but instead got edited and *that* one sent, so now you must delete that original, too. [Yes, I know that's trivial in a macro, and it may even have been in one or more of the macros posted; that's not the point here.] What you want to do, or really should want to do, is just compose your mail or reply and tell mutt "I'm done with it; hand it off" without really thinking about whether it will be sent or queued. As one other person noticed, postponing is all about completing the message to be authored rather than completing the sending process. Now to get back to putting it in mutt-user terms... You should let mutt be the mail user agent and let something else be the mail transport agent, and that something else will take care of whether to send now or queue up for later. % % % > Laas % Vlad HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G davidtg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
Attachment:
pgpeaw9yE6YWR.pgp
Description: PGP signature