On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:24:02 +0000, Byspel sent: >On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:18PM +1000, Pete Johns wrote: >>On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 21:02:48 +0000, Byspel sent: >>-------------------------------^^^^^ >>Are you sure this is the correct time? >It's not. I use a stripped down version of linux slackware >(I love minimalistic!) which doesn't have the time zone >package. If this can be easily fixed by somehow telling mutt >to use hardware local time, fine, otherwise this issue is >not very important to me. > Ah okay. It' just that it confuses mutt as to what time the email was sent, when displaying messages in date-order. >>Actually, this may be a better solution: >[Corrected version follows] >macro generic "<esc>1" "<enter-command>set <from=x2@xxxx> >hostname=y2.net realname=name<enter><enter-command>my_hdr Bcc: ><x1@xxxx><enter><enter-command>set hostname<enter>" "Set account >to y1.net" [End of corrected version] >>This will echo "hostname=y2.net" to the message-line without >>you having to press enter. >No, actually it's not, because I have more than one account at >hostname=y2.net, so I need a way to make a distinction between >accounts. > Hey-ho! It was just an idea. >If there is a way to add something like 'echo <xx@xxxx>' to the >line to produce that effect, that would be great. > Indeed. As I said in my initial reply, I cannot think of any way of doing that. >Further: is there a way I can pass msmtp (my smtp client for >mutt) an occasional on-the-fly command line setting (e.g. >'--account=account') from within mutt while composing a message >(I use vi as the editor on my system)? Non-occasional settings >are already taken care of by the .msmtprc configuration file. > I don't see why you would not be able to alter the value of your sendmail setting from the 'compose' menu. You could do this with a set of macros. >Which brings up the subject: should I install vim in the place >of vi? I noticed you use vim and are very knowledgeable, so you >are in a good position to give me good advice. > I am guilty as charged on the first charge, but plead not guilty to any subsequent charges ;-) >I use the traditional vi (ex-vi) which is a mere 200KB. Would it >make sense for me to go to the trouble of adding several MB of >used space to my system for vim's sake? Keep in mind that I do >not do any hard core programming and use my minimalistic system >basically only for email, news and web browsing from the console >(and for learning my way around little jewels such as vi... ;-)) > Vim, frankly, rocks. I use it for just about everything I can (email, html, php, C++, scripts, file manipulation, general text editing, etc...). I can only suggest that you install it and see ff it meets your requirements. Like Mutt-Users, the Vim mailing list is a mine of useful information. >A last one: I noticed most of you guys use the latest >development version of mutt. I installed the latest stable mutt >(1.4.2.1) only because I assumed it was the right thing for me >to do. I am looking for stability and reliability, and not to >experiment with new features that might be unreliable. Are there >any advantages for me to switch to 1.5.11 or should I stay with >1.4.2.1? > Mutt 1.5.11 (2005-09-15) is the version I use. I believe this to be the most up-to-date stable version. >Sorry about all these questions... I should have probably >started different threads under more appropriate headings for >those, but then, again, should I have? > You may find that you get more helpful responses if your questions are in emails with appropriate subject lines. In the meantime, I have to go, I hope this helps. Best; --paj -- Pete Johns <http://johnsy.com/> Tel/Fax numbers and IM information <http://johnsy.com/contact/> Yet Another Blog Entry <http://johnsy.com/20060525103459>
Attachment:
pgpjO7qpOahoU.pgp
Description: PGP signature