Re: how about the notion of filters for replying, etc.
On 28Dec2006 20:17, Sweth Chandramouli <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| Nope. What's passed to $editor is the message that you are composing.
| What the hypothetical $reply_filter would be passed would be the message
| to which you are responding. That way, you can access and act on info
| in the headers of the message being replied to that would otherwise
| never even make it into the temp file passed to $editor. (Examples
| below.)
| The trick is then deciding how $reply_filter passes info on to $editor.
| There are two ways that I can see of doing it:
Or (3) map 'r' to <pipe-message>replier-script.sh<enter>.
replier-script.sh would:
- copy stdin into a temp file, thus getting a copy of the original
message
- construct the prototype reply message based on the original,
using whatever criteria your reply_filter was going to use
- attach stdin, stdout and stderr to the terminal
- fire up:
mutt -H the-new-reply-message-file
- clean up wnad exit
Seems simple enough and doesn't need adding a new facility to mutt,
which is already sufficiently powerful:-)
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
I once ended up sending a copy of my resume to misc.resumes, alt.sex.bondage
and alt.personals. How that misc.resumes newsgroup got in there, I'll never
know. - John Benfield <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>