Am 28.07.2010 17:04, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-28, Christoph Kukuliesk...@kukulies.org wrote:
Am 27.07.2010 23:57, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-27, Christoph Kukuliesk...@kukulies.org wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
* Christoph Kukulies k...@kukulies.org [07-29-10 03:36]:
Oh, sorry. I thought in the first place (as some other reader as well
) your post was meant sarcastically. :)
So it's probably not a good idea to use this Bcc:- technique?
Then I'm probably left to the loop technique sending a single
Am 27.07.2010 23:57, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-27, Christoph Kukuliesk...@kukulies.org wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the recipients. Often
this is an interesting field for social research :) but
On 2010-07-28, Christoph Kukulies k...@kukulies.org wrote:
Am 27.07.2010 23:57, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-27, Christoph Kukuliesk...@kukulies.org wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the recipients.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the
recipients. Often this is an interesting field for social research :)
but that left aside, I would like
Am 27.07.2010 09:39, schrieb Brian Salter-Duke:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the
recipients. Often this is an interesting field for social
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 12:56:26 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 09:39, schrieb Brian Salter-Duke:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done loop
I could make an alias of these users, but
Am 27.07.2010 13:19, schrieb Christian Ebert:
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 12:56:26 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 09:39, schrieb Brian Salter-Duke:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Instead of going through a for i in `cat
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 13:51:29 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 13:19, schrieb Christian Ebert:
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 12:56:26 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 09:39, schrieb Brian Salter-Duke:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Am 27.07.2010 13:58, schrieb Christian Ebert:
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 13:51:29 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 13:19, schrieb Christian Ebert:
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 12:56:26 +0200
Am 27.07.2010 09:39, schrieb Brian Salter-Duke:
* Christoph Kukulies on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 16:14:05 +0200
Ah, I see. Well, the users file was retrieved by saving that persons
email - good to know about that decode-save now -
and hand editing it. I finally ran some vi commands over it and
manually converted all the =FC and
Quoth Brian Salter-Duke on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:36:44AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the
recipients. Often this is an interesting field for social
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 11:08]:
Make sure you have
set write_bcc=no
in your .muttrc, or the Bcc header will be included in the message.
That *only* applies to your locally saved copy, not the outgoing message
that others see.
see the man page.
--
Patrick
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 02:58:56PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 11:08]:
Make sure you have
set write_bcc=no
in your .muttrc, or the Bcc header will be included in the message.
That *only* applies to your locally saved copy, not
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
Default: yes
Controls whether mutt writes out the “Bcc:” header
when preparing messages to
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Hmmm... Seems like you're wrong after all (Mutt 1.5.20hg
(2009-08-27)). Mutt may well write out the Bcc line on the message
that is sent out.
The bcc addressed to me, I have rec'd and it does *not* contain a bcc
header or any of the
On Jul 27, 2010 at 03:29 PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
Hmmm... Seems like you're wrong after all (Mutt 1.5.20hg
(2009-08-27)). Mutt may well write out the Bcc line on the message
that is sent out.
It's probably dependent on the SMTP agent, no? I did a test earlier today
using putmail as my
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
Default: yes
Controls whether mutt writes out
* Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com [07-27-10 16:51]:
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
and I am bcc'ing this post to you, the op and me.
Maybe sendmail strips it? I'm using ssmtp.
I have: postfix-2.7.1-50.1.x86_64
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana,
On 2010-07-27, Christoph Kukulies k...@kukulies.org wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the recipients. Often
this is an interesting field for social research :) but that left
aside, I would like avoid this in a
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:57:39PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to hide
the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus a note that
the email went to a
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
Quoth Patrick Shanahan on Tuesday, 27 July 2010:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 16:31]:
Ah, you must mean this bit, from the muttrc man page:
write_bcc
Type: boolean
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
I have:
:set ?write_bcc write_bcc is set
and I am bcc'ing this post to you, the op and me.
Maybe sendmail strips it? I'm using ssmtp.
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:43]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and ssmtp may not as well (but it probably should). Exim
claims to have good reason for leaving them,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:43]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
It does. And I believe it's not a lone. But Exim does not by
default, and ssmtp may not as well (but it
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [07-27-10 18:56]:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Then the *problem* is with exim rather than the *expected* actions of
mutt's config?
It's an arguable point. And it's a long-known problem.
26 matches
Mail list logo
