On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:53:08PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Friday, August 5 at 02:20 PM, quoth John J. Foster: > >What I'm looking for is basically: > > > >folder-hook if ~l then unset record else set record=sent_folder > > I use this: > > send-hook . 'set record="=Sent"' > send-hook ~l 'set record=' > > Using a folder-hook doesn't exactly make sense, because what folder > you're in doesn't *really* have anything to do with sending mail. Why do > you want to use a folder-hook? (Hint: folder-hook patterns match on the > name of the folder, not the contents of the messages inside the folder) > > ~Kyle Understood. But let's imagine this scenario. I'm in my "mutt-users" folder reading this mailing list. My "from" is set to "festus+mutt-users@xxxxxxxxx" because of folder-hook for "mutt-users". "set record" is currently unset because of same folder-hook for "mutt-users". This works fine for replying to the list, because I don't want a copy in my "sent" folder. But if I reply to to author (as opposed to the list), I don't have any record of that email. To further complicate things, if that author then replies back to me, that email ends up in "mutt-users" because of my "from" for the folder-hook. So overall, and to expand my on original request, what I want to do is as follows: No matter what folder I'm in If I list reply set folder is unset from = festus+folder@xxxxxxxxx If I reply to author set folder is set to sent items from = festus@xxxxxxxxx Does that make any more sense? -- Contrary to the lie machine, the world is not safer.
Attachment:
pgp4JPo6ffw2Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature