On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 07:56:08PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > The text of the OP's request indicates a grasp of > more than just the basics. Thank you for the compliment. All the more reason you should cut me some slack? I've sent out my fair share of "please trim your quoted material and stop top-posting" emails, but I'm not an expert on everything. > He even stated that he is completely able > to answer his own question, but that it would be easier to ask someone > else. Well, I can read the manual, again, and again, and if that fails I know C so I could read the source... I could even concoct some macros or folder-hooks that could change my From: address, and coupled with knowlege of "set envelope_from" I could potentially accomplish the task, but not necessarily in the best way, or in the way that will cause the least headaches in the long run. Not necessarily the mutt way. Technically I could reverse engineer, say, Windows XP, to figure out the best way to remove an installed program, but it's faster to ask someone who actually uses that accursed OS. Does being the most efficient, simplest, and quickest way to reliably answer the question make it morally wrong? > Granted *many* individuals may be or are unable to determine steps > necessary to gain their target, it is not rocket science. *Some* > people need help, the OP requested someone to solve his problem because > it would be *faster* for him. I could have chosen better words for the situation, admittedly. I think "fastest" carried with it "least effort on my part", which may not be "least effort overall", though in this case it was. I didn't say that I had read the entire mutt manual (modulo the reference, which I searched), and that I had browsed around the mutt newbie site, and that I had read the manpage. I didn't point out that it was difficult to get meaningful results from a search about it (either on the web or in the reference section). The manual is large enough that by the time you get to the reference your brain is full and actually trying to read the reference straight through borders on masochism. I'd rather read the source than a dictionary of mutt config lines that are mostly irrelevant. Perhaps to prevent this situation, someone (possibly me, though I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it) should write a page about RFC-2822 email headers and how the MUA-to-MTA interaction works, with specific emphasis on the sort of config directives that affect it. Then I would have been able to identify that as a section that might contain some relevant settings. -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? <URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> -><-
Attachment:
pgpvRC5ZuLDyX.pgp
Description: PGP signature