<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Procmail



On 2007.10.09 12:50:53 +0000, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday, October  9 at 10:23 AM, quoth Rem P Roberti:
> > Boy, I'm missing something here.  Ok...I did have the syntax wrong, 
> > and now that I have the path to my mailboxes correctly stated in 
> > .muttrc Mutt does indeed give me a message at the bottom of the 
> > screen telling me that a message has arrived in the named folder.  
> 
> Excellent! Progress! :)
> 
> > However, I was under the impression that the incoming messages would 
> > also be listed in the index.
> 
> ... ummm, they are. When you view the contents of the folder they were 
> delivered to.
> 
> Let me try to put this another way: mutt's index of messages is the 
> index of a single folder. Mutt can only ever view messages from a 
> single folder at a time. If you have new messages delivered to a 
> folder you aren't looking at, mutt will happily inform you that there 
> are new messages in that folder, but to see them you have to go view 
> that folder. Mutt will not simply add them to the index of whatever 
> folder you happen to be viewing currently, because to do so would be 
> to misrepresent the contents of the folder you're currently viewing 
> (and really, how would that play out, if mutt behaved the way you seem 
> to be assuming it does? Would all new messages in your defined 
> mailboxes listed in the indexes of EVERY folder that you view? How 
> disconcerting would *that* be?!?).
> 
> This is the same behavior as virtually every other mail client in 
> existence: if you establish a rule to automatically file mail away in 
> a folder, by definition, it does not appear in your INBOX (if it did, 
> what would be the point of filing it?).
> 
> > Otherwise, how would one get the chance to reply?
> 
> You go open up the folder containing the new mail, read the message, 
> and reply to it; the same way you reply to all other mail.
> 
> > Also, is it possible to have the filtered messages placed in their 
> > respective folders without all of the headers?
> 
> That's between you and your MDA (procmail), but in general, it 
> depends. Some folder formats (e.g. mbox) rely on at least some of the 
> headers existing. What would be the point of stripping off headers? 
> Some misguided attempt to save a few bytes of storage?
> 
> ~Kyle
> - -- 
> Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that 
> matter.
>                                               -- Martin Luther King Jr.


Oh, brother!  I didn't realize that you could get to the individual
folders from within Mutt by <ESC> c.  You want to laugh...I responded to
your last couple of posts by cut and paste!  Things are beginning to
come together.

Rem