[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] I did something wrong with replcomps

From: David Levine
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] I did something wrong with replcomps
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:40:57 -0500

Norm wrote:

> 1. How many people on the planet are both smart and knowledgeable enough
> to have done that?

I don't know that smart has anything to do with it.  MH/nmh formatting is
documented, and while cryptic, it gets the job done.  fmttest(1) is very
helpful when working with format strings.

> 2. There is a line:
> %<{fcc}Fcc: %{fcc}\n%>\
> Containing the string, "fcc", twice and the string "Fcc" once. But it
> produces no Fcc line; NOR do I want it to.

You can remove that line if you'd like, see below.

> What's going on?

If you're asking what that format string does:  if there's an Fcc:
header field in the message being replied to, it will use its contents
in the draft.  If there isn't an FCC: header field in the message being
replied to, it will do nothing.

fmttest can show this.  It can be run on a message that's constructed to
show what you want.  Or it can take its values from strings on the command
line, with the text component, %{text}, taking its values from the command
line strings (and therefore the format strings below use {text} instead of

    $ fmttest -format '%<{text}Fcc: %{text}\n%>' -raw '+outbox'
    Fcc: +outbox

    $ fmttest -format '%<{text}Fcc: %{text}\n%>' -raw ''

If you're asking why that replcomps would look in the replied-to message
for an Fcc: component, that's a good question.  I don't think it's a good
idea.  Perhaps the author wanted to reply to their own drafts?  It's been
there as far back as I can tell, which is over 26 years.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]