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

Re: Not FCC-ing mail addressed to subscribed mailing lists



Hi Kyle,

thanks for the reply.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:22:44AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > fcc-hook ~u     /dev/null
> > fcc-hook .      =Sent
> 
> Not bad... a little wasteful, though (not that this is incredibly 
> important). Your fcc-hook there are out of order (I'm assuming you 
> just put them backwards in the email?); 

No. This is the order they are in my .muttrc, and things work as
expected -- =Sent is the default record.

> what you have there, since all matching hooks are executed in order,
> should make it so that ALL mails get saved to =Sent.

Are you sure? I thought fcc-hook executed the first matching rule and
stopped there, so you should put default conditions at the end. I can't
find a definitive statement about this anywhere in the documentation
though. Sorry, I know this is a FAQ.

> Personally, though, I'm picky enough that I don't want mutt to go to 
> the trouble of actually *writing* the FCC, even if it's just writing 
> it to /dev/null; so I use this:
> 
>     send-hook .  'set record="=Sent"'
>     send-hook ~u|~p 'set record='

Wouldn't ~p match anything you were sending in which any of your
alternates was one of the recipients, e.g. mail you sent to someone and
yourself (To: or CC:) for some reason? Is that what you mean? If I
wanted not to save outgoing email _only_ addressed to me, am I right in
thinking that I need a caret, i.e. ^~p?

> Nope, you're on the right track. Doing things the procmail route is... 
> well, wasteful, and probably too complicated. The only drawback to 
> this way of doing things in mutt is that if you post a message to a 
> mailing list that is temporarily down, you can't see what exactly you 
> sent until the mailing list comes back up. But if you're okay with 
> that (I am), then this is a great way to do it.

Yup. This was my only concern with this -- you're relying on a machine
you don't control to get a copy of your own writing. However, life's not
that short, but it is too short to worry about that ;-)

-- Mike