🚀 go-pugleaf

westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) writes:

>Can someone tell me how to do the following in elm:
>
>-	set my Reply-To: address automatically rather than having to add
>it manually each time I send mail?
>
>-	add the Return-Receipt-To: field to the list of headers that can
>be set from the elm header menu, but leave it empty by default.  It is a
>drag to have to specify a user-defined header, and then fill in the
>header as well as address.

Additional header lines can be put into the file "$HOME/.elm/elmheaders"
("elmheaders" for short).  They will be appended to your outgoing mail.

Example: My "elmheaders" file contains (only) the following line:

Organization: Free University of Berlin

WARNING! Using a return receipt header line will cause a lot more
traffic on the net. Please use it only if it is absolutely necessary!

Sven :)

guckes@math.fu-berlin.de (Sven Guckes) writes:

>westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) writes:

>>Can someone tell me how to do the following in elm:
>>
>>-	set my Reply-To: address automatically rather than having to add
>>it manually each time I send mail?
>>
>>-	add the Return-Receipt-To: field to the list of headers that can
>>be set from the elm header menu, but leave it empty by default.  It is a
>>drag to have to specify a user-defined header, and then fill in the
>>header as well as address.

>Additional header lines can be put into the file "$HOME/.elm/elmheaders"
>("elmheaders" for short).  They will be appended to your outgoing mail.

Yes, this works in a way, but it points to another problem: when you put
headers into elmheaders, these do *not* appear when you select the
'h'eader option while interactively creating mail.  Is this a bug or a
"feature"?  Is there some option I can set in elmrc so that the headers
in elmheaders will be seen, and can be changed, at the time I send each
piece of mail?

Thanks,
Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com

westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) writes:
>>Additional header lines can be put into the file "$HOME/.elm/elmheaders"
>>("elmheaders" for short).  They will be appended to your outgoing mail.
>Yes, this works in a way, but it points to another problem: when you put
>headers into elmheaders, these do *not* appear when you select the
>'h'eader option while interactively creating mail.  Is this a bug or a
>"feature"?  Is there some option I can set in elmrc so that the headers
>in elmheaders will be seen, and can be changed, at the time I send each
>piece of mail?
This is not a bug or a feature, just the way Elm works.  As Dave implimented
Elm, the elmheaders file is just blindly copied to the end of the header
section.

Elm 2.x does not have an option that lets you see and edit the elmheaders
file on a message by message basis.
-- 
========================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.4PL05
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 3.0 Release: ??? ?,1994
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd      Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235

syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:

>This is not a bug or a feature, just the way Elm works.  As Dave implimented
>Elm, the elmheaders file is just blindly copied to the end of the header
>section.

>Elm 2.x does not have an option that lets you see and edit the elmheaders
>file on a message by message basis.

Well, let me explain why I think that is a bug.  By not parsing the
elmheaders file, you allow the user to both include a Reply-To: in
elmheaders, and to specify a different Reply-To: through the elm
interactive interface.  As a result, the outgoing mail has multiple
Reply-To: fields to different addresses, and that is probably a
semantically meaningless (or at least ambiguous) condition.

At very least, maybe we could ask for elmheaders to be parsed and read
into the interactive elm interface as a request for a new feature.

Thanks,
Will Estes		Internet: westes@netcom.com

westes@netcom.com (Will Estes) writes:
>syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:
>>Elm 2.x does not have an option that lets you see and edit the elmheaders
>>file on a message by message basis.

>Well, let me explain why I think that is a bug.  By not parsing the

Blah, blah...

I've had this thought in the back of my mind for a long time, and
only now has it actually formed properly (triggered, I'd say):

Would it be difficult to add postprocessing to message preparation
(in the above instance, some program could be invoked to sort the
headers in some prescribed sequence and filter them through "uniq")?

In my particular instance, I default tabs to 4 spaces in "vi"
and then end up with irremediably confused messages because the
reading default is 8 spaces.  I have a program to expand tabs which
I inevitable neglect to call from vi and would like applied to
each message I produce.

I'm sure creeping featurism must be a feature in Elm, but it is such
a versatile tool, it's difficult to hold back the suggestions.

Personally, I feel a lot of the features Elm shares with Smail (like
address resolution, for example) should be relegated to a separate
program, specially where processes can be spawned cheaply (not my
PC 7300, though), in the original one-task-one-program tradition.

And while I'm about it, I find the following flaw with most Unix
tools: they allow me to manipulate their _own_ environment, but
not that of the processes (the SHELL in particular) that they may
spawn.  Putting it simply, I'd like to type !PATH=xxxxx or
set PATH=xxxx and make it stick!

Lucio de Re - using and liking Elm more and more,
              but already four patches behind.

lucio@proxima.alt.za