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

Re: How to assign a permanent address in the Bcc: field?



On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:24:02 +0000, Byspel sent:
>On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:18PM +1000, Pete Johns wrote:
>>On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 21:02:48 +0000, Byspel sent:
>>-------------------------------^^^^^
>>Are you sure this is the correct time?
>It's not. I use a stripped down version of linux slackware
>(I love minimalistic!) which doesn't have the time zone
>package. If this can be easily fixed by somehow telling mutt
>to use hardware local time, fine, otherwise this issue is
>not very important to me.
>
Ah okay. It' just that it confuses mutt as to what time the email
was sent, when displaying messages in date-order.


>>Actually, this may be a better solution:
>[Corrected version follows]
>macro generic "<esc>1" "<enter-command>set <from=x2@xxxx>
>hostname=y2.net realname=name<enter><enter-command>my_hdr Bcc:
><x1@xxxx><enter><enter-command>set hostname<enter>" "Set account
>to y1.net" [End of corrected version]
>>This will echo "hostname=y2.net" to the message-line without
>>you having to press enter.
>No, actually it's not, because I have more than one account at
>hostname=y2.net, so I need a way to make a distinction between
>accounts.
>
Hey-ho! It was just an idea.


>If there is a way to add something like 'echo <xx@xxxx>' to the
>line to produce that effect, that would be great.
>
Indeed. As I said in my initial reply, I cannot think of any way
of doing that.


>Further: is there a way I can pass msmtp (my smtp client for
>mutt) an occasional on-the-fly command line setting (e.g.
>'--account=account') from within mutt while composing a message
>(I use vi as the editor on my system)? Non-occasional settings
>are already taken care of by the .msmtprc configuration file.
>
I don't see why you would not be able to alter the value of your
sendmail setting from the 'compose' menu. You could do this with
a set of macros.

>Which brings up the subject: should I install vim in the place
>of vi? I noticed you use vim and are very knowledgeable, so you
>are in a good position to give me good advice. 
>
I am guilty as charged on the first charge, but plead not guilty
to any subsequent charges ;-)


>I use the traditional vi (ex-vi) which is a mere 200KB. Would it
>make sense for me to go to the trouble of adding several MB of
>used space to my system for vim's sake? Keep in mind that I do
>not do any hard core programming and use my minimalistic system
>basically only for email, news and web browsing from the console
>(and for learning my way around little jewels such as vi... ;-))
>
Vim, frankly, rocks. I use it for just about everything I can
(email, html, php, C++, scripts, file manipulation,  general text
editing, etc...). I can only suggest that you install it and see
ff it meets your requirements. Like Mutt-Users, the Vim mailing
list is a mine of useful information.


>A last one: I noticed most of you guys use the latest
>development version of mutt. I installed the latest stable mutt
>(1.4.2.1) only because I assumed it was the right thing for me
>to do. I am looking for stability and reliability, and not to
>experiment with new features that might be unreliable. Are there
>any advantages for me to switch to 1.5.11 or should I stay with
>1.4.2.1?
>
Mutt 1.5.11 (2005-09-15) is the version I use. I believe this to
be the most up-to-date stable version.


>Sorry about all these questions... I should have probably
>started different threads under more appropriate headings for
>those, but then, again, should I have?
>
You may find that you get more helpful responses if your
questions are in emails with appropriate subject lines.

In the meantime, I have to go, I hope this helps.


Best;

--paj
-- 
Pete Johns                                   <http://johnsy.com/>
Tel/Fax numbers and IM information   <http://johnsy.com/contact/>
Yet Another Blog Entry         <http://johnsy.com/20060525103459>

Attachment: pgpjO7qpOahoU.pgp
Description: PGP signature