On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:10:38PM -0500, Allister MacLeod wrote: > So: > ignore * > unignore x- > ignore x-spam- > unignore x-spam-level > doesn't show X-Spam-Level: because the ignore x-spam- match still > exists, since the second unignore doesn't match it directly. At least > I think this is the way it works.. right > and I assume that * is treated as a > special case for which subexpressions can be unignored correctly. apparently ;-) > So, I tried being as permissive as possible, by not using * or > unignore at all, and building a gargantuan ignore list. > Unfortunately, I discovered that my liking for an uncluttered header > area far outweighs my curiosity about strange X-Killed-The-Cat > headers. So it's back to 'ignore *' 'unignore From To CC Subject' My list is pretty good, ATM, and I keep adding to it as I discover more "boring" headers. I use prefix-matching rather sparingly, so I get to see almost every "interesting" header that comes my way. > One thing I thought of was to put together a set of macros that lets > me change the level of weeding of headers. That way I could hit H or > something to change from spartan 4-header mode to show-me-the-X's > mode, while still keeping out noise like Received headers. FWIW, I have hooks setup to change the level of weeding depending on many factors (is it a list message? is it addressed to me? was it sent by me? was it by my best friend? etc.). If you just want two or three hard-coded "levels" of weeding, though, you may be best off putting each of them in an RC file and then sourcing it in response to your keystroke. > Before I start, though, I need to know a couple of things. First, > what's the best way to do ignore/unignore from a macro? As I said, if you only want a couple of hard-coded levels, sourcing an RC file is your best bet. > Second, if > I'm doing it in the pager, what's the best way to get the headers to > be redisplayed? Just <display-toggle-weed> twice? It's the way I use. (Does anybody know a better way?) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp11xNWou1gF.pgp
Description: PGP signature