Re: Problem with mutt-0.96.3i
Hi! On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 01:22:53AM +0200, Holger Eitzenberger wrote On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:43:12PM -0500, David DeSimone wrote: I don't suppose anyone is interested in the problem of why the keymap-defs.h file wasn't built automatically? At least _i_ am interested in it since I tried to build mutt-0.95.6-3 from the Debian sources (unstable) and had exactly the same problem. This could be interesting. Here I could build mutt-0.95.6-1 without problems (Debian 2.1/2.2) but the keymap-defs.h file wasn't built automatically under Irix. The configure-options for Debian: --prefix=/usr --with-sharedir=/usr/share/mutt \ --sysconfdir=/etc --disable-fcntl --enable-pop --enable-imap \ --with-slang --with-regex --enable-flock --enable-exact-address\ --enable-compressed --with-catgets There is a seg-fault if LANG C and --with-included-gettext. The configure-options for Irix: --enable-pop --enable-imap --enable-flock --disable-fcntl \ --disable-nls --enable-compressed Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan SeitzE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | WWW: http://fsing.fs.uni-sb.de/~stse/| | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.fs.uni-sb.de/~stse/pgp.html | PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:26:02AM +0200, J Horacio MG wrote: Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. mutt is not commandline based. Ok, you can send a mail via the commandline if you must, but you can be sure that I wouldn't use mutt if it was commandline based like say mail! -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. -- F. P. Jones PGP signature
Re: mutt w/pgp5i
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:28:42PM +0200, Christian Stigen Larsen wrote: I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had some small problems using it with mutt, it didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with this ? Well, PGP5 has a different syntax and different binaries. pgp -k - pgpk and so on... Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt an e-mail and send it to a mailinglist, having all the recipients being able to decrypt it ? Yes. You simply have to have all the keys of all the possible users and encode the message to all of them. Easy. I recommend reading the PGP manual for the concept of public key encryption. -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb "Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -- Asimov, "Foundation" PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Thus spake Hal Burgiss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. That's surely due to mutt being command line based. When ignorance is bliss ... Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" *sigh* Alex -- ** I doubt, therefore I might be. ** *** Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get PGP-Key ***
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? * Faster. * Smaller. * Doesn't crash. * Colorful * Can properly encrypt mail * Does all and even more than what OE does * Not so buggy (security etc.) * Free! * Open Source * System wide preferences! "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" * to show my individuality * because I can randomize my signatures with it * because I'd like to be able to read my mail even when N$ crashes * because I'd like to answer fast * I'm a keyboard person * I'd like to know that there is source I can use if things go amiss. * Modularity -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb The doctrine of human equality reposes on this: that there is no man really clever who has not found that he is stupid. PGP signature
rot13 in pager?
Hi, can the pager decode rot13? Best regards Martin -- Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10 PGP signature
Re: rot13 in pager?
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:54:11AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote: Hi, can the pager decode rot13? Dunno. Who needs that? When in doubt, replace the interanl pager which can... -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb To err is human. To forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System. PGP signature
Re: rot13 in pager?
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:02:38PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:54:11AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote: Hi, can the pager decode rot13? Dunno. Who needs that? When in doubt, replace the interanl pager which can... Sometimes spoilers are rot13 coded. -- --ytti - ::3585:0512:1378
RE: RE: Standard output
(sorry for the loss of the subject yesterday) Ok I explain again (Liviu Daia was near the solution I need the pipe function but in command line mode and not when using mutt normally) Currently I do mutt -s "hello" [EMAIL PROTECTED] /message_file and it sends the message_file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I would like not to send it but to pipe the result (the whole message) although sending it directly I hope I'm clear... Didier Bye --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Re: mutt w/pgp5i
Christian -- ...and then Christian Stigen Larsen said... % I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had % some small problems using it with mutt, it % didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk % instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with % this ? Mutt is pgp5-, pgp2-, and gpg-capable and knows the differences between them; did you install pgp5 but tell mutt that it was using pgp2, perhaps? Check out manual.txt for pgp settings and PGP-Notes.txt for general pgp info... % % Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt % an e-mail and send it to a mailinglist, having % all the recipients being able to decrypt it ? Theoretically, yes; you need the public key of every subscriber in your ring and you somehow make a small note to pgp to use all of them even though you're only sending to one list address. Practically, no, since that collection can be pretty tough to get and it would be a pain to tell pgp about the large bunch. A nice middle ground might be to have a bogus public/private key pair for the list itself, where all list holders have a copy of the private key and anyone can use the public key for encryption, but that would soon leak beyond the list and be hardly worth the bother. Still, it's an interesting concept... Perhaps the public keys of each subscriber could be registered with the list management software, which would use a much less bogus private key to decrypt (in batch mode without human intervention -- warning! -- or *with* interaction at the cost of the list owner's time) and then recrypt messages for posting, so that anyone posting needs only one public key (the list's), and could in fact not even encrypt the submission but just let the list software encrypt the original plaintext when it broadcasts it. That's probably a lot of work for the server, though, especailly for a large list. Does anyone have any ideas about implementations like that? % % % P.S. What's the deal with version 2.6.3i of PGP ? Why % are a lot of people using this version instead % of the 5 and 5.5 versions ? My guess is inertia; it's installed and has been for years, while pgp5 perhaps isn't and definitely hasn't, and it encrypts within the message instead of using this "new-fangled MIME stuff" (and we know how much the average user, who doesn't understand a man page, likes to read RFCs). % % -- % Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://www.sublevel3.org % [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~chrisl/ :-D -- David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! "Why2k? Well, I didn't think at the time that I could charge any more!" Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Horacio -- ...and then J Horacio MG said... % % Notice though, that netscape was by far the widiest voted mailreader. Actually, I saw PINE out ahead at something like 26%, while Communicator was only at 22% or so... % That's surely due to mutt being command line based. Yeah. Thank Heavens ;-) % % Regards, % -- % Horacio :-D -- David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! "Why2k? Well, I didn't think at the time that I could charge any more!" Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: mutt w/pgp5i
On 1999-07-15 07:38:53 -0400, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote: Still, it's an interesting concept... Perhaps the public keys of each subscriber could be registered with the list management software, which would use a much less bogus private key to decrypt (in batch mode without human intervention -- warning! -- or *with* interaction at the cost of the list owner's time) and then recrypt messages for posting, so that anyone posting needs only one public key (the list's), and could in fact not even encrypt the submission but just let the list software encrypt the original plaintext when it broadcasts it. That's probably a lot of work for the server, though, especailly for a large list. Does anyone have any ideas about implementations like that? ftp://ftp.iks-jena.de/pub/mitarb/lutz/crypt/mailinglist/ It has a key for the list and subscribtions are managed manually. Best regards Martin -- Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10 PGP signature
Re: rot13 in pager?
Quoting Saku Ytti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 01:26:02PM +0300: On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 12:02:38PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:54:11AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote: Hi, can the pager decode rot13? Dunno. Who needs that? When in doubt, replace the interanl pager which can... Sometimes spoilers are rot13 coded. Lrnu, lbh'q or fhecevfrq ubj pbzzba vg vf. You can pipe it through tr, though -- press |, then enter a command like tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m | less and away you go. You could make that a macro if you find yourself needing it often. -r. -- -- Rich Lafferty --- Sysadmin/Programmer, Information and Instructional Technology Services Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7600 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
filtering and pgp parsing
I have two questions: 1. Can I configure Mutt to filter my mail upon opening a mailbox? 2. How can I use Mutt's PGP integration on a message that contains a PGP header, that doesn't follow Mutt's attachment convention? Friends who use other readers sometimes like to put the message in the body of the mail instead of putting it in MIME attachments. Thanks again. -- [-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- adam j henry =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=] | [http: www.heidelberg.edu/~ahenry] [pgp: 0x92B1EDF5] | | [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] [icq: 5794025] | [-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=] PGP signature
Re: mutt w/pgp5i
Christian Stigen Larsen sent off: Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt an e-mail and send it to a mailinglist, having all the recipients being able to decrypt it ? People have sent you answers, but it depends on the politics of the list. Unfortunately in some countries encrypted email is illegal. Practically, I think that if you grabbed, say, the mutt public key ring (it's available, but incomplete), and told pgp to encrypt a message to everyone on that ring, pgp would produce an encrypted copy for everyone on the ring and cat them all together, so the message that gets sent to the list would be hundreds or thousands of times larger than the original. The mailing list server would have to send it to a corresponding number of people, which would be quite nasty. The one key for the list idea gets around that, though. P.S. What's the deal with version 2.6.3i of PGP ? Why are a lot of people using this version instead of the 5 and 5.5 versions ? Because PGP 2.6.3i works, and PGP 5 is bloatware. -- I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up. - Mark Twain Robert I. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/ PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html PGP signature
-u required
Hi... I have just downloaded mutt 0.96.3. Compiled it successfully with PGP 5i. I put this on my ~/.muttrc: set pgp_autosign set pgp_replysign set pgp_sign_as="0x3C452459" source ~/.mutt_pgp5rc ~/.mutt_pgp5rc is the same as pgp5.rc file found on mutt's source contrib directory. Whenever I try to sign a message, I get this: -u option requires a userid argument And PGP just doesn't sign the message. Can somebody tell me how to overcome this situation? TIA
Re: filtering and pgp parsing
At 10:07 AM EDT on July 15 Adam J Henry sent off:
1. Can I configure Mutt to filter my mail upon opening a mailbox?
Do you mean scoring? Yes. If you mean limiting the view like with
limit, I suppose you could make a macro to change to the mailbox and
execute the limit command.
2. How can I use Mutt's PGP integration on a message that contains a PGP
header, that doesn't follow Mutt's attachment convention? Friends who use
other readers sometimes like to put the message in the body of the mail
instead of putting it in MIME attachments.
I hope this is in a FAQ, but here goes:
1. Get procmail.
2. Put this in your ~/.procmailrc:
#
# Add a "Content-Type: application/pgp" header so Mutt will know the
# mail is signed / encrypted.
:0 H
* !^Content-Type:.*application/pgp
{
:0 fB
* ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
| formail -I Content-Type -A "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
x-action=encrypt"
:0 fB
* ^-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| formail -I Content-Type -A "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
x-action=sign"
}
#
Sorry, I can't remember who first posted that to the list. Procmail
can also filter your mail before it goes in your mailbox(es).
HTH.
--
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
Robert I. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/
PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:18:45AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: "Alex, I´m honest -- Outlook is very good and totally fits my needs... so - why do you use mutt?" * to show my individuality * because I can randomize my signatures with it * because I'd like to be able to read my mail even when N$ crashes * because I'd like to answer fast * I'm a keyboard person * I'd like to know that there is source I can use if things go amiss. * Modularity "because mutt is very good and totally fits _my_ needs." :-) Cheers, Chris -- Chris Tilbury, UNIX Systems Administrator, IT Services, University of Warwick PHONE: 024 7652 3365 / FAX: 024 7652 3267 / MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
standard output
Hello, I use mutt in command line mode to send mail. I would like not to send the mail directly but to print it on the standard output in a way to pipe it to another program Can anyone help ? bye --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Re: -u required
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 09:16:24PM +0700, m4v3r1ck wrote: set pgp_sign_as="0x3C452459" I don't need that for PGP to work. Try a username instead! -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb Freedom to be an idiot is part of freedom in general. PGP signature
Re: standard output
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 10:15:40AM -0700, wrote: I use mutt in command line mode to send mail. I would like not to send the mail directly but to print it on the standard output in a way to pipe it to another program Why ? If you want to send attachments from the commandline try mpack / munpack -- Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall. PGP signature
PGP encrypt mail from command line
Fellow Mutt-fans: I want to be able to PGP encrypt and send mail to a recipient from the command line. In .muttrc I've set pgp_autoencrypt I try: mutt -s "hi there" [EMAIL PROTECTED] plain_textfile This doesn't work, the plain_textfile arrives as plain text instead of PGP encrypted. I've made sure that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is in the public keyring. This works fine (without prompting for passwords) when I send my mail using the mutt interface, but I'd really like to be able to do this by command line. If not I would have to use _expect_ for sending encryptet mail automatically. Surely this must be possible ? Best regards! -- Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://www.sublevel3.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~chrisl/ PGP signature
Re: filtering and pgp parsing
Rob Reid [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: At 10:07 AM EDT on July 15 Adam J Henry sent off: 1. Can I configure Mutt to filter my mail upon opening a mailbox? Do you mean scoring? Yes. If you mean limiting the view like with limit, I suppose you could make a macro to change to the mailbox and execute the limit command. He probably wants something like procmail, though "upon opening a mailbox" is a bit different. 2. How can I use Mutt's PGP integration on a message that contains a PGP header, that doesn't follow Mutt's attachment convention? Friends who use other readers sometimes like to put the message in the body of the mail instead of putting it in MIME attachments. I hope this is in a FAQ, but here goes: It's in the FAQ and the PGP-Notes.txt file that's part of every distribution. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: How to remove User-Agent?
On Fri, Jul 16 1999, at 00:13 +0700, m4v3r1ck wrote: Just noticed that mutt 0.96.3i adds User-Agent header to outgoing message. "X-Mailer:" has been superceded by "User-Agent:", in compliance with some more recent IETF draft. Marco
Re: Problem with mutt-0.96.3i
make keymap_defs.h Thanks, it works very well! I don't suppose anyone is interested in the problem of why the keymap-defs.h file wasn't built automatically? It's a bug in Makefile.am. --- cvs/mutt/Makefile.amWed Jun 9 13:53:14 1999 +++ src/mutt/Makefile.am Thu Jul 15 20:08:16 1999 @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ main.c mbox.c menu.c mh.c mx.c pager.c parse.c pattern.c \ postpone.c query.c recvattach.c rfc822.c \ rfc1524.c rfc2047.c score.c send.c sendlib.c signal.c sort.c \ - status.c system.c thread.c charset.c history.c lib.c muttlib.c + status.c system.c thread.c charset.c history.c lib.c muttlib.c \ + $(BUILT_SOURCES) mutt_LDADD = @MUTT_LIB_OBJECTS@ @LIBOBJS@ $(INTLLIBS) mutt_DEPENDENCIES = @MUTT_LIB_OBJECTS@ @LIBOBJS@ $(INTLDEPS) @@ -49,7 +50,7 @@ README.SECURITY remailer.c remailer.h browser.h Muttrc.in \ lib.h extlib.c pgpewrap pgplib.h -BUILT_SOURCES = mutt_dotlock.c keymap_defs.h +BUILT_SOURCES = keymap_defs.h mutt_dotlock_SOURCES = mutt_dotlock.c mutt_dotlock_LDADD = @LIBOBJS@
Re: Email client poll
Alexander Langer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Can you give me reasons why to use mutt instead of Outlook Express, that I can tell my friends here? - standard compliance (if they care; if they don't you have another lecture to give them ;) - very accessible remotely on slow modem lines -- read your mail *anywhere* without the insecurity of web based mail - much faster (compare deleting 3000 messages in Mutt to 1 in Outlook: Mutt is 'tag-pattern, pattern, delete tagged, zip zip done', Outlook is 'slowly repaint the screen with spiffy animation') - no stupid reply formatting - it doesn't crash if you sneeze - threaded display and thread collapsing - configuration, configuration, configuration! - if they are on mailing lists, the mailing list handling must be mentioned - you can easily access all the headers and define your own - OE requires you run Windows somewhere. Mutt requires you run Un*x somewhere. Un*x Windows. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Holger Eitzenberger [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Most *nix's come with pine installed by default. If you get a telnet account somewhere you get pine, if you login to your uni account you most likely will see pine. Reason? Maybe it has to do with pines limited possibilities to configure (easier for newbies), which makes it also the preferred MUA installed by sysadmins since it's likely that fewer problems arise. Good point(s). For me it was elm that was there to use, so switching to Mutt when I found it was just a logical upgrade. A lot of the pro-Pine comments were "I can use it with telnet", which obviously is not something just Pine has (duh). So if it's just inertia (and we care), then maybe some advocacy needs to be done. Maybe we should point out other areas where mutt is superior over other MUAs and make them publicly available. I've got some stuff like this on the web page -- it seems to me that people need to first hear about Mutt and be curious enough to look into it, and when that happens they will go to the web page. I'm always open to suggestions for the site. As for getting people to look if there is a better console mailer out there than they have, I dunno. Pine does a lot of stuff in bad ways but people tend to not realize it's bad ways until they see it done right. "You never miss what you never know." One advantage though is that people that care about the kind of issues Mutt excels in (size, configurability, standards compliance) are not going to be happy with something else and *are* likely to go looking. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 03:02:54PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote: Holger Eitzenberger [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: ...So if it's just inertia (and we care), then maybe some advocacy needs to be done. If it's advocacy you want, release pre-compiled binaries for W32 and/or DOS. PC hackers will try it, love it, and spread the word !
Re: Email client poll
John Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. I found one on somebody's site, I think Sven's, but I'm not 100% sure (I'm sure somebody will pipe up and correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, it's 90x36 (though I use tags to shrink it smaller). A direct link to it is http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4/buttons/mutt.button.gif .adam -- [ Adam Lazur | Computer Engr Ugrad | Lehigh Univ. | _ __ ] [icq 3354423 | http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4|__( | /_ ] "The glorious MEEPT would like to bring all the divided factions of linux into one big divided faction." -MEEPT @ /.
Re: Email client poll
John Franklin [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. Sven has one on his site, so does Brandon Long; I dunno who originally had it. There are also several versions of the 'little dog running around' bar out there. I don't go for unnecessary images that bloat pages, but these two are prolly worth working in... 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. Sven's is bigger than that but I'll prolly play with resizing it down to 88x31. Here's something else I may work in (with the author's permission) ... found it in the /. comments: Ode to Mutt by Trick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) When I'm stuck, or in a rut, Or been dumped by some worthless slut; My boss has made me bust a nut, Or I've got stress pains in my gut; Some aliens have probed my butt, Or I've just had my jaw wired shut; I've got a nasty paper cut, Or anchovies from Pizza Hut; I've missed an easy golfing putt, Or feel as dead as old King Tut; I still stand proud, my jaw I jut, I don't have much, but I have mutt. Yay mutt. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Standard output (answer)
Thanks to the ones who answered, I tried using cat as the $sendmail in muttrc but it didn't work So as my mailserver is qmail, I sent the message to a false user and get it back from his mailbox It works for what I wanted, so... Thanks to everybody ! --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Re: Email client poll
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:26:33PM -0400, John Franklin wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. 88x31 seems to be a common size for such things, but I've seen them a little bigger. SETI@Home's is 90x32, for example. A good idea that is. Maybe there will even be something like a constest, but then there should be something to win... don't know. But for sure an _official_ mutt logo is IMHO very important and i will be happily one of those to put it on his webpage. IMHO it's also important that it's just _one official_ logo instead of several more or less unofficial ones. -- Holger -- + PGP || GnuPG key - finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +++ Debian/GNU Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ ICQ: 2882018 +++ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Why is it so important that Mutt be #1 on a Slashdot poll? Just curious. It isn't at all. Mostly we were talking about people using other mailers (like Pine) not because they liked the features the most but out of inertia. As I said, *if we care*, there are things we could try to do about this. If we don't care, we ignore it. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- "Would you fight to the death, for that which you love? In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?" -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_ PGP signature
Re: Email client poll
Holger Eitzenberger zei Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:07:03AM +0200 dat: On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 04:26:33PM -0400, John Franklin wrote: Is there a support graphic a la "Netscape NOW!" that people could put on their home pages? I didn't see anything on the mutt.org site. Then again, I didn't see ANY graphics on the mutt.org site. IMHO that's one of the great things about the site as well as mutt itself. I visit the page for the information on it and I want it as fast as possible. If, however, everybody is _so_ excited about fancy images, logos and frames, I would apreciate it if a lynx-friendly version was maintained as well. Thankfully, stasinos
Re: Email client poll
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 04:49:04PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
I get the impression, though, that a lot of "the faithful" don't read /.
much since the s/n ratio got so bad. Most of the comments seem to be
newbies. The informal survey of mail headers done a while back by someone
on this list may be more telling of use among Mutt's "target" user base.
i made a quick grep | awk | sort | uniq -c ... survey on a few of my
maillist archives:
shortcommings:
i used the following line to count the header:
grep X-Mailer: listfile | awk '{ print $1, $2 }' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
that is the header is cut of after the first word, so Windows,
Internet and others may be different mailers counted as the same
pine does not use the X-Mailer: header, so i had
to revert to the Message-ID, which fortunately starts with Pine
people who post more are overrepresented...
below the counts i list how many of the headers where actually found,
to help you relativize the numbers a bit...
our local linux user group at the technical university in vienna
(more than 350 members)
101 X-Mailer: XFMail
111 X-Mailer: Z-Mail
130 X-Mailer: KMail
232 X-Mailer: Microsoft
323 X-Mailer: Internet
350 X-Mailer: Windows
497 X-Mailer: exmh
2345 X-Mailer: Mutt
2553 X-Mailer: ELM
2980 X-Mailer: Mozilla
5215 Message-ID: Pine
36 counts of User-Agent:
10226 counts of X-Mailer:
11228 counts of Message-ID:
17883 counts of From
Window Maker:
207 X-Mailer: Windows
211 X-Mailer: Internet
409 X-Mailer: VM
412 X-Mailer: exmh
445 X-Mailer: Microsoft
475 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
490 X-Mailer: ELM
694 X-Mailer: Gnus
946 X-Mailer: XFMail
3071 X-Mailer: Mutt
4103 X-Mailer: Mozilla
6007 Message-ID: Pine
7 counts of User-Agent:
12105 counts of X-Mailer:
16007 counts of Message-ID:
22683 counts of From
bugtraq
171 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
177 X-Mailer: Internet
256 X-Mailer: ELM
316 X-Mailer: Mozilla
321 X-Mailer: Microsoft
359 X-Mailer: Mutt
1259 Message-ID: Pine
19 counts of User-Agent:
2077 counts of X-Mailer:
4152 counts of Message-ID:
4146 counts of From
and for the fun of it, mutt:
1 X-Mailer: AtDot
1 X-Mailer: Magnus
1 X-Mailer: TFS
1 X-Mailer: Urbi
1 X-Mailer: VM
1 X-Mailer: XFMail
1 X-Mailer: mutt
1 X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com
2 X-Mailer: Novell
2 X-Mailer: Z-Mail
2 X-Mailer: exmh
3 X-Mailer: dMail
4 X-Mailer: Internet
4 X-Mailer: Mew
5 X-Mailer: Gnus
5 X-Mailer: MailCity
6 X-Mailer: Forte
7 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM
9 X-Mailer: Windows
18 X-Mailer: ELM
23 X-Mailer: Microsoft
26 X-Mailer: Mozilla
3175 X-Mailer: Mutt
59 Message-ID: Pine
370 User-Agent: Mutt
370 counts of User-Agent:
3297 counts of X-Mailer:
3672 counts of Message-ID:
3779 counts of From
===
greetings, martin.
--
Life is not fair. But the root password helps.
--
unix systemadministrator iaeste.or.at iaeste.tuwien.ac.at mb.iaeste.or.at.
institut hochbau II an der tu wien.
email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at.
black.linux-m68k.org.
stuts.org.
mud.at.
Martin B"ahr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to remove User-Agent?
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 08:57:16PM +0200, Marco Goetze wrote: On Fri, Jul 16 1999, at 00:13 +0700, m4v3r1ck wrote: Just noticed that mutt 0.96.3i adds User-Agent header to outgoing message. "X-Mailer:" has been superceded by "User-Agent:", in compliance with some more recent IETF draft. read http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-02.txt for details greetings, martin. -- Life is not fair. But the root password helps. -- unix systemadministrator iaeste.or.at iaeste.tuwien.ac.at mb.iaeste.or.at. institut hochbau II an der tu wien. email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at. black.linux-m68k.org. stuts.org. mud.at. Martin B"ahr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
