Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
also sprach Adam Bell (on Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:35PM -0400): Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? as others have said, it's micro$oft's inability to stick to standards --- PGP/GPG nowadays uses MIME for signed and encrypted messages, which mickysoft can't handle... huh, however, outlook express on an hackintosh can read these messages *correctly*... what a shame on microsoft (and on me..) martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- echo '[dO%O+38%O+PO/d00]Fi22os0CC4BA64E418CE7l0xAP'|dc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
also sprach Peter S Galbraith (on Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:44:22PM -0400): The reason? My incoming mail goes through an MS-Exchange server, and it strips out the signature part and makes a mess of the mail header. There's no * ^X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org or * ^From [EMAIL PROTECTED] left to filter on. subscribe to debian-user as [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- since you are using postfix, it can deal with that, and you can use the Delivered-To header. martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- you work very hard. don't try to think as well. pgpt4W1d2Uc3B.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 02:14:12PM -0600, John Galt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
also sprach Adam Bell (on Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:35PM -0400):
Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA
sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message?
as others have said, it's micro$oft's inability to stick to standards
--- PGP/GPG nowadays uses MIME for signed and encrypted messages,
which mickysoft can't handle...
I'm not too happy with some of the factual errors here.
1) PGP/GPG doesn't use anything: {p|g,g|p,p|g} is perfectly happy
encrypting anything you throw at it: it's a command line utility, designed
for use with STDIN and STDOUT.
While this is fundamentally true, Mime-encoding the relevant output --
the signed message and the signature -- allows for intelligent treatment
by the mail agent. This provides the option for increased functionality
in the form of automatic signature checking, key retrieval, prompting
for passphrases for encrypted email.
2) if you can use nowadays, it's not that standard. Standards are
pretty much defined by their static quality, hence the fact that RFCs
aren't edited, they're superseded.
RFC 2015 dates from 1996. Like all RFCs, it's static. The rest of the
world has had five years to implement this standard. Much of it has. A
portion of the non-adoption can be blamed on patents and other
encumbrances against widespread adoption of encryption technology.
3) This is one of the few cases where it's not MS's fault. Mutt made
some spectacular changes, and defined a standard to fit them (SOP so
far).
Um. An *open* standard. Submitted to the IETF RFC process. Better
than, say, standards such as SMB, .NET, or MS Word .doc format.
Innovation's got to happen somehow, doesn't it? The PGP/MIME standard
*is* a standard, and follows the recommended route. If this is SOP,
it's highly encouraged.
Nobody else has really implemented the standard, yet mutt users
yell and scream that everyone else is not standards compliant.
It makes us feel morally superior.
Other MUA implementations of RFC 2015:
- emacs
- exmh
- premail (Netscape plugin)
- TkRat
- XFMail
- KMail
- XCMail
- Sylpheed
- MS Outlook (plugin)
- MS Outlook Express (plugin)
- Eudora (plugin)
- Datula (plugin)
- Edmax (plugin)
- Mulberry (plugin)
- PMMail (native)
- Turnpike (native)
- Claris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Mixmaster
- ishmail
- Voodo (Amiga)
For a lists:
http://rmarq.pair.com/pgp/mail-clients-pgp.html
http://www.spinnaker.de/mutt/rfc2015.html
The rest of the world IS compliant, just not to mutt's amended
standards. To be precise, there's a mode in mutt that breaks even
pine compatibility: a signed message shows up as an attachment under
some circumstances. I have no fears that pine's going to arbitrarily
run code, but I just trash the all attachment messages anyway:
life's too short to deal with non-inline text. I haven't had this
problem on d-u, I found out about the mode on another list, and FWIU
it takes a pretty perverse person to make the setting.
Pine's got the problem of being non-free. Unless UW wants to implement
2015 compatibility, users are stuck with patching the code themselves.
I'd not hold Pine up as an exemplar of free software of standards
compliance.
The email MIME standard (RFC 1521) also holds that quoted-printable text
(an RFC 2015 payload) should be rendered as inline text.
5.1. Quoted-Printable Content-Transfer-Encoding
The Quoted-Printable encoding is intended to represent data that
largely consists of octets that correspond to printable characters
in the ASCII character set. It encodes the data in such a way that
the resulting octets are unlikely to be modified by mail transport.
If the data being encoded are mostly ASCII text, the encoded form of
the data remains largely recognizable by humans. A body which is
entirely ASCII may also be encoded in Quoted-Printable to ensure the
integrity of the data should the message pass through a
character-translating, and/or line-wrapping gateway.
...so, arguably, at worst a mail client should display the body of the
message but treat the signature as an attachment.
Cheers.
--
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!! http://www.freedmitry.org
pgpr5Odu2Bvz9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 01:16:50PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: ...so, arguably, at worst a mail client should display the body of the message but treat the signature as an attachment. HA HA HA People want to use their mail, not understand it. It should be *easy* to attach your personal documents to messages sent to addresses that happened to be listed on a webpage you just visited. Sigh, these unix people just don't get it, do they? pgp/mime will never work if users can't click on it to see what will happen next. Cheers, Joost
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:46:42PM +0200, Joost Kooij ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 01:16:50PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: ...so, arguably, at worst a mail client should display the body of the message but treat the signature as an attachment. HA HA HA People want to use their mail, not understand it. It should be *easy* to attach your personal documents to messages sent to addresses that happened to be listed on a webpage you just visited. Sigh, these unix people just don't get it, do they? pgp/mime will never work if users can't click on it to see what will happen next. Could you translate that into English please? -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!! http://www.freedmitry.org pgppeKxdPwcqf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:46:42PM +0200, Joost Kooij ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 01:16:50PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: ...so, arguably, at worst a mail client should display the body of the message but treat the signature as an attachment. HA HA HA People want to use their mail, not understand it. It should be *easy* to attach your personal documents to messages sent to addresses that happened to be listed on a webpage you just visited. Sigh, these unix people just don't get it, do they? pgp/mime will never work if users can't click on it to see what will happen next. Could you translate that into English please? I think he's making a joke at the expense of all the people who have experienced the sircam worm. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton pgpadQckByBKo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: Could you translate that into English please? Do you want fries with that, sir? phony smile Cheers, Joost
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 05:09:47PM -0500, Nathan E Norman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 02:50:45PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: on Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:46:42PM +0200, Joost Kooij ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 01:16:50PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: ...so, arguably, at worst a mail client should display the body of the message but treat the signature as an attachment. HA HA HA People want to use their mail, not understand it. It should be *easy* to attach your personal documents to messages sent to addresses that happened to be listed on a webpage you just visited. Sigh, these unix people just don't get it, do they? pgp/mime will never work if users can't click on it to see what will happen next. Could you translate that into English please? I think he's making a joke at the expense of all the people who have experienced the sircam worm. Look, damnit. If mutt *needed* a humor-detection plugin, mutt would *have* a humor plugin. Stop insulting my sensibilities. ;-^ -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!! http://www.freedmitry.org pgppjpobGL0AB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 05:09:47PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote: I think he's making a joke at the expense of all the people who have experienced the sircam worm. Woa! You made me grab for my Hendrix mp3's... Have you ever been experienced? I think the sircam victims had a pretty bad trip. Still, they're the lucky ones, they learnt not to click on things in the mail the gentle way. The next form of foot-and-mouth will be smarter and more damaging as well. The joke is at the the people who deny that this is only going to get worse with each new generation of viruses being smarter and each new generation of internet users being dumber when they first meet the net. Really I agree with Karsten's technical arguments, I just think that it is also important that people experience the relevance of standards. You can either cry about the facts or laugh at them. It won't make them go away either way, but at least they look better when you laugh. Cheers, Joost
Re: RFC 2015 (PGP/MIME) MTA compliance (was Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?)
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: Nobody else has really implemented the standard, yet mutt users yell and scream that everyone else is not standards compliant. It makes us feel morally superior. Alas! They still have a sense of humor. -- Philipp Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
also sprach Adam Bell (on Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:35PM -0400): Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? as others have said, it's micro$oft's inability to stick to standards --- PGP/GPG nowadays uses MIME for signed and encrypted messages, which mickysoft can't handle... martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- echo '[dO%O+38%O+PO/d00]Fi22os0CC4BA64E418CE7l0xAP'|dc
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:50:36 +0200 Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Adam Bell (on Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:35PM -0400): Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? as others have said, it's micro$oft's inability to stick to standards --- PGP/GPG nowadays uses MIME for signed and encrypted messages, which mickysoft can't handle... On the other hand, neither does Sylpheed handle it too well. Karsten's multipart post a little up the thread appeared as a blank message with attachments for me too. This is too bad, as otherwise Sylpheed is an excellent mailer. Mart -- 'Quoth the mailserver: 554!' pgp0k39u4dmna.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
also sprach Adam Bell (on Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:35PM -0400):
Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends
every
single message as an attachment to an empty message?
as others have said, it's micro$oft's inability to stick to standards
--- PGP/GPG nowadays uses MIME for signed and encrypted messages,
which mickysoft can't handle...
I'm not too happy with some of the factual errors here.
1) PGP/GPG doesn't use anything: {p|g,g|p,p|g} is perfectly happy
encrypting anything you throw at it: it's a command line utility, designed
for use with STDIN and STDOUT.
2) if you can use nowadays, it's not that standard. Standards are
pretty much defined by their static quality, hence the fact that RFCs
aren't edited, they're superceded.
3) This is one of the few cases where it's not MS's fault. Mutt made some
spectacular changes, and defined a standard to fit them (SOP so far).
Nobody else has really implemented the standard, yet mutt users yell and
scream that everyone else is not standards compliant. The rest of the
world IS compliant, just not to mutt's amended standards. To be precise,
there's a mode in mutt that breaks even pine compatibility: a signed
message shows up as an attachment under some circumstances. I have no
fears that pine's going to arbitrarily run code, but I just trash the all
attachment messages anyway: life's too short to deal with non-inline
text. I haven't had this problem on d-u, I found out about the mode on
another list, and FWIU it takes a pretty perverse person to make the
setting.
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, John Galt wrote: world IS compliant, just not to mutt's amended standards. To be precise, there's a mode in mutt that breaks even pine compatibility: a signed Yes. Just as a warning for others, either let mutt do the pgp/mime the way it wants, or do not let it sign messages at all. text. I haven't had this problem on d-u, I found out about the mode on another list, and FWIU it takes a pretty perverse person to make the setting. Or someone which was too sleepy at the time to notice mutt would do something as extremely dumb as sending what should be text/plain stuff with a mime type of application/pgp when told not to use pgp/mime... -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh pgpE2VViYrqNt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
on Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:04:35PM -0400, Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Assuming, as others have, that you're referring to GPG/PGP, and quite possibly my mail (in which case you'll have to have someone forward you a copy of this message), the short answer is: you're using a broken mailer. I've written a number of FAQs on topics which recur with annoying frequency, the GPG/PGP mail FAQ isn't complete, so I'm attaching a series of related draft documents that are going into it (a bit of insight into the mind of...um, somebody). Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Are these opinions my employer's? Hah! I don't believe them myself! A Short Rant / FAQ on the Subject of Signed E-Mail and Public Key Infrastructure Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com I use a combination of tools in my email to create messages which are cryptographically signed in such a way that it is readily possible for the recipient to gain a good level of assurance that the message: - Originates from me. - Hasn't been modified in any way en route. This is sometimes called a digital signature (a technical term, not to be confused with the recently passed US legislation on electronic signatures, regarding legal contractual powers associated with various, and largely very weak, methods of inserting corporate hands into your wallet). The system under which it operates is known as public key infrastructure, and is based on public key encryption. You're probably going to start hearing a whole lot about this over the next year or so. That's the long description. The short story is that there's a way for me to keep half a secret and spread the other half to the world in such a way that you can tell if a particular message came from my half of the secret. It's pretty cool. The other part: You're responsible for determining whether or not a communication that purports to come from me is in fact from me. And if I didn't sign it, it almost certainly didn't. If the message *is* signed, it's still your obligation to verify the signature itself. You're probably reading this because you either stumbled across it at my website, or I sent it to you in response to an email you sent me saying you can't read my mail. In the latter case, the short answer is that: - Your mailer is broken. - This is your problem, not mine. - File a bug report with your vendor. - I'm going to continue signing my mail, and if you don't change your end of things, you're going to continue having problems reading it. - No, this isn't a virus, a bomb, a bug, a worm, or any other executable code. - If your IT or MIS department is brain-dead enough to actually strip off these attachments before you get your mail, I'm going to laugh at you in public. Sorry, this ain't the sympathy department. There's a nice rant below about why this is such a pathetic action, though, you might enjoy reading it. The long answer is the rest of this document. There's an Internet standard, called a request for comments, or RFC, which covers MIME encoded encryption and signatures. This is RFC 2015 (more info below under Resources). While it is still a draft standard, it is widely supported on multiple platforms. There are some pieces of Internet mail plumbing which break the protocol -- multiple mail clients (email applications to you), as well as some server applications. LISTSERV and beromail are two I'm aware of -- but compatibility modes are frequently available for such software, and in many cases, support is planned in future upgrades. But that's another story. If you're interested in the gory technical details, read on. You should be able to save my email as a text file and open it in a simple editor (e.g.: Notepad or Write under Legacy MS Windows). You'll find that the message body content type of my messages is expressed as: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...which should be handled properly as inline plain-text content. If your mailer doens't present the message body in this format, you should report a bug to the program maintainer or vendor. The signature is presented as: Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline For an intelligent mailer, this should be interpreted, rather than presented, and used to validate the message content itself. Otherwise, the content can be presented or concealed, at the user's preference. You might ask why I insist on signing my mail. Fair question. Part of the reason
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Assuming, as others have, that you're referring to GPG/PGP, and quite possibly my mail (in which case you'll have to have someone forward you a copy of this message), the short answer is: you're using a broken mailer. Go figure, *this* message showed up fine. Note: I'm reading it with Outlook Express at the moment. I've seen some people's names on this list often enough. Let's see who's using what... Karsten = mutt (this message showed up fine, five others didn't) Vineet Kumar = mutt (blank message body in OE, message is in attachment) John Galt = pine (message shows up fine) Carel Fellinger = mutt (message shows up fine) Joost Kooij = mutt (message shows up fine) Bob Nielsen = mutt (message shows up fine) Robert Waldner = pine ((blank message body in OE, message is in attachment) Regards Hall
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Hall Stevenson wrote: Yep, I remember the situation now -- Karsten sends his messages PGP signed (I just checked). OE chokes on them :-). Signing messages is good so I don't think he'll stop (it's just time for the rest of us to catch up wink). Actually, other people PGP sign their messages and I don't think I have the same problem... I'll pay more attention tomorrow. I had recent problems with mutt's legacy pgp support. One must *NOT* allow mutt to send non-pgp/mime messages, for they're sent with an application/pgp mime type, which is obviously not a text/* variant :) pgp/mime compliant messages are sent with a far more proper mime type, and are perfectly readable in, e.g. pine. I could care less about outcrook express -- which cannot handle multipart pgp/mime messages right. If one is going to use bovine crap for a MUA, one better be able to deal with the smell. (this message sent non-signed to make sure even OE users can read it :P ) -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Actually, other people PGP sign their messages and I don't think I have the same problem... I'll pay more attention tomorrow. I had recent problems with mutt's legacy pgp support. One must *NOT* allow mutt to send non-pgp/mime messages, for they're sent with an application/pgp mime type, which is obviously not a text/* variant :) pgp/mime compliant messages are sent with a far more proper mime type, and are perfectly readable in, e.g. pine. Here's what one of the messages that only shows up as an attachment shows: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i These messages show up *blank* in the message body. You have to open the (2) attachments to see the message. One is ATTxx.txt and the other is ATTyy.dat. The txt file contains the person's message. Maybe I'm reading what you said above wrong, but is mutt set up incorrectly ?? (this message sent non-signed to make sure even OE users can read it :P ) You don't understand... the messages are perfectly readable. It's just that they're attached to the mail. Open the attachment and there it is. Regards Hall
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Hall Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's what one of the messages that only shows up as an attachment shows: It seems that OE doesn't understand the multipart signed part. Or it doesn't understand Content-disposition: Inline. -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! When a person goes on a diet, the first thing he loses is his temper.
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 08:21:56AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote: | Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to | Debian Users) MUA sends every single message | as an attachment to an empty message? | | Assuming, as others have, that you're referring to | GPG/PGP, and quite possibly my mail (in which case | you'll have to have someone forward you a copy of this | message), the short answer is: you're using a broken | mailer. | | Go figure, *this* message showed up fine. Note: I'm reading it | with Outlook Express at the moment. That is weird. Maybe the presence of the other attachments caused OE to behave better. | I've seen some people's names on this list often enough. Let's | see who's using what... | | Karsten = mutt (this message showed up fine, five others | didn't) | Vineet Kumar = mutt (blank message body in OE, message is in | attachment) | John Galt = pine (message shows up fine) | Carel Fellinger = mutt (message shows up fine) | Joost Kooij = mutt (message shows up fine) | Bob Nielsen = mutt (message shows up fine) | Robert Waldner = pine ((blank message body in OE, message is | in attachment) Some of those people didn't PGP sign their messages. Check which messages were PGP signed too. FYI I'm using mutt with the option 'set pgp_verify_sig=no' so that I don't get an annoying couldn't verify sig mesasge at the top of signed mails. I see delimiters that say Attachment 1 (followed by the message) then Attachment 2 (followed by the signature) but I see the body of the message inline as the mail headers specified. -D
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Yep, I remember the situation now -- Karsten sends his messages PGP signed (I just checked). OE chokes on them :-). Signing messages is good so I don't think he'll stop (it's just time for the rest of us to catch up wink). I could care less about outcrook express -- which cannot handle multipart pgp/mime messages right. If one is going to use bovine crap for a MUA, one better be able to deal with the smell. I'm not an Outlook user, but _every_ PGP-signed message I get goes by all my procmail rules straight into my plain inbox (So I immediately know when Karsten replies to debian-user messages in bulk!). The reason? My incoming mail goes through an MS-Exchange server, and it strips out the signature part and makes a mess of the mail header. There's no * ^X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org or * ^From [EMAIL PROTECTED] left to filter on. MS-Exchange sucks. Peter
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Yep, I remember the situation now -- Karsten sends his messages PGP signed (I just checked). OE chokes on them :-). Signing messages is good so I don't think he'll stop (it's just time for the rest of us to catch up wink). I could care less about outcrook express -- which cannot handle multipart pgp/mime messages right. If one is going to use bovine crap for a MUA, one better be able to deal with the smell. I'm not an Outlook user, but _every_ PGP-signed message I get goes by all my procmail rules straight into my plain inbox (So I immediately know when Karsten replies to debian-user messages in bulk!). The reason? My incoming mail goes through an MS-Exchange server, and it strips out the signature part and makes a mess of the mail header. There's no * ^X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org or * ^From [EMAIL PROTECTED] left to filter on. MS-Exchange sucks. Only MUA I tolerate with MS-Sexchange is telnet blah 110... retr and linux's terminal paging is perfect for me :) Peter -- A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle. Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who. Finger me for PGP public key.
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:00:45PM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Peter S Galbraith wrote: The reason? My incoming mail goes through an MS-Exchange server, and it strips out the signature part and makes a mess of the mail header. There's no * ^X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org or * ^From [EMAIL PROTECTED] left to filter on. MS-Exchange sucks. What I've seen it do is this: you send a multipart/signed mime message through an exchange server, and it will munch up half the message headers, all the mime headers, the signature part and inline the signed text part, with a new mime declaration, introducing windows codepage 1251. I could never figure out what went wrong, because when I sent the exchange competence center people an smtp + pop3 dump illustrating the mangling, they were completely baffled about the possibility of sending email with telnet, so I gave up. Only MUA I tolerate with MS-Sexchange is telnet blah 110... retr and linux's terminal paging is perfect for me :) Umm, actually it doesn't or didn't. Fetchmail had to be patched to allow incorrect pop3 list responses from a certain vendor's mail server, because it reported not the actual message size, but the size of the compressed entry in the mail database. It is also explained in the fetchmail FAQ. When the company where this happened, tried to get some of the support they were paying (very big time) for, there was no answer. So two bsd gurus who were affected by this debugged it a bit and even found the likely cause of the problem sent a patch to the fetchmail bazaar. Shortly after the patched version of fetchmail hit the net, the submitters of the patch were contacted by an exchange developer. After some pounding with rfc's, he agreed that it was a bug and gave a magic registry hack to fix exchange, ie. one has to add a key called pop3 compatibility to be compliant with the rfc's. Since knowing about this, it has never been a doubt to me that open source has better support than closed source, even if that's what you're actually using. Cheers, Joost
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 09:54:05PM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote: | I could never figure out what went wrong, because when I sent the exchange | competence center people an smtp + pop3 dump illustrating the mangling, | they were completely baffled about the possibility of sending email with | telnet, so I gave up. ... | Umm, actually it doesn't or didn't. Fetchmail had to be patched to allow | incorrect pop3 list responses from a certain vendor's mail server, | because it reported not the actual message size, but the size of the | compressed entry in the mail database. It is also explained in the | fetchmail FAQ. | | When the company where this happened, tried to get some of the support | they were paying (very big time) for, there was no answer. So two bsd | gurus who were affected by this debugged it a bit and even found the likely | cause of the problem sent a patch to the fetchmail bazaar. | | Shortly after the patched version of fetchmail hit the net, the submitters | of the patch were contacted by an exchange developer. After some pounding | with rfc's, he agreed that it was a bug and gave a magic registry hack to | fix exchange, ie. one has to add a key called pop3 compatibility to be | compliant with the rfc's. LOL! Great story. Thanks Joost. | Since knowing about this, it has never been a doubt to me that open source | has better support than closed source, even if that's what you're actually | using. What Every Retailer Should Know ... (if you don't know what I am talking about search the debian-user archives to find a hilarious MS press release) -D
Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? --adam b.
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Does a person with the name Karsten send them a lot ?? ;-) He uses mutt... The problem is, you're using Outlook Express to read the messages (I do too at work), so we'll get no sympathy or offers to fix the problem. I use Mutt at home and they messages work just fine there. They show up as normal and not attachments. The bigger question is, how do we fix Outlook Express ?? Not likely we'll get an answer there though. Maybe I'll check Microsoft's Knowledge Base tomorrow. Regards Hall
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
* Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Mickeysoft Lookout Distress? Dima (transmits every known virus except AIDS, and we're working on it) -- E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home) http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key The wombat is a mixture of chalk and clay used for respiration. -- MegaHal
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:04:35PM -0400, Adam Bell wrote: | Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends | every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Read the X-Mailer: header of the offensive message. I don't see any messages like that. It is conceivable that it is just OE displaying the message that way. -D
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Adam Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? --adam b. H One might also ask which MUA sends out every single message (unless you adjust it) in HTML format? ;-) Glyn -- ** * Here we are then... * * http://members.tripod.co.uk/Christchurch2000uk * **
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
* Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010725 19:11]: * Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Mickeysoft Lookout Distress? Uhh, sorry, but that's wrong. I replied to his message, to the list, and my message showed up with *no* attachments. I sent the message using Outlook Express. I read the message at work with the same program and also at home, using Mutt. Again, no attachment. The problem doesn't seem to be the sending program (Karsten's messages always appear this way when I'm reading them with OT -- not picking on you, Karsten, it's just your name I remember). The problem is how OE is reading them... As I said, we won't get a solution here. Regards Hall
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:46:07PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote: | * Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010725 19:11]: | * Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: | | Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends | every single message as an attachment to an empty message? | | Mickeysoft Lookout Distress? | | Uhh, sorry, but that's wrong. I replied to his message, to the list, and my | message showed up with *no* attachments. I sent the message using | Outlook Express. I read the message at work with the same program and | also at home, using Mutt. Again, no attachment. | | The problem doesn't seem to be the sending program (Karsten's messages | always appear this way when I'm reading them with OT -- not picking on | you, Karsten, it's just your name I remember). The problem is how OE is | reading them... As I said, we won't get a solution here. Yep, I remember the situation now -- Karsten sends his messages PGP signed (I just checked). OE chokes on them :-). Signing messages is good so I don't think he'll stop (it's just time for the rest of us to catch up wink). -D
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010725 23:17]: On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:46:07PM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote: | * Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010725 19:11]: | * Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: | | Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA | sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? | | Mickeysoft Lookout Distress? | | Uhh, sorry, but that's wrong. I replied to his message, to the list, | and my message showed up with *no* attachments. I sent the message | using Outlook Express. I read the message at work with the same | program and also at home, using Mutt. Again, no attachment. | | The problem doesn't seem to be the sending program (Karsten's | messages always appear this way when I'm reading them with OT -- | not picking on you, Karsten, it's just your name I remember). The | problem is how OE is reading them... As I said, we won't get a | solution here. Yep, I remember the situation now -- Karsten sends his messages PGP signed (I just checked). OE chokes on them :-). Signing messages is good so I don't think he'll stop (it's just time for the rest of us to catch up wink). Actually, other people PGP sign their messages and I don't think I have the same problem... I'll pay more attention tomorrow. I did install PGP Freeware from Network Associates but it made no difference. Searching Microsoft's KB came up with nothing either. Hall
Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
Dimitri Maziuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Adam Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: Okay, so can anyone tell me what popular (to Debian Users) MUA sends every single message as an attachment to an empty message? Mickeysoft Lookout Distress? Dima (transmits every known virus except AIDS, and we're working on it) Not true, after some research it was decieded that MS Outlook wasn't responsible for the recent foot and mouth out break in England :)
