Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Hi, I see on the mutt homepage that gnupg is recommended over pgp. Are there reasons for this beyond the whole 'use gnu whenever possible because of their licensing'? Or are there real, functional reasons behind choosing gnupg over pgp? The whole 'use gnu whenever possible because of their licensing' stuff *is* for real, but besidde that, I learned that GPG's command line makes much more sense. Thorsten
Re: special reply_regexp
Hi, thank you the regexp, but mutt still does not show threads. I'm puzzled. An example of the subjects, which should be recognized as a thread is following: Subject: [ifc-ml:2583] Re: Illegal circuit data for smincut Subject: [ifc-ml:2584] Re: Illegal circuit data for smincut The sorting method is "thread", and there is of course "strict_threads" unset. Somehow the regexp still does not work. Any idea? On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:27:40PM -0500, Laurent Pelecq wrote: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:27:40 -0500 From: Laurent Pelecq [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mutt User List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: special reply_regexp Mail-Followup-To: Laurent Pelecq [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mutt User List [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:37:41AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote: Hi, in one of my folder containing msgs from a mailing list I would like to sort the msgs as threads. With the default reply_regexp this does not work, because the mailing list always puts a string "[ifc-ml:] " at the beginning of the subject line of each msg. is an increasing number and is always different. If mutt would check for the text after this string and possible Re:'s, then the threading display might work. Is this possible? If so, how should the reply_regexp look like? You can try "^(\[[][]*\][ \t]+)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[ \t]*" \[[][]*\] should match: [ anything_except_brackets ] Or more specific: "^(\[[a-z0-9:-]*\][ \t]+)?(re ... " If you are sure that you can have only a-z0-9:- between the brackets. I've just tested that to tag messages and it worked. -- Laurent Pelecq [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Error messages
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:12:43PM -0800, David Alban wrote:
Greetings!
At 2000/12/13/18:58 -0600 David Champion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean just to test the muttrc file and report parse errors?
How about:
mutt -F test.muttrc -f /dev/null -e "push x" /dev/null
That's *way* cool!
Here's a script[1] which uses your idea to test $1 if it's defined and
$HOME/.muttrc if it isn't:
(the script itself quoted for context)
#!/bin/bash
pgm=`basename $0`
die () {
echo 12 "$pgm: $1"
exit 1
} # die
muttrc=$HOME/.muttrc.common
[[ -n $1 ]] muttrc="$1"
[[ ! -e $muttrc ]] die "$muttrc: no such file"
[[ ! -f $muttrc ]] die "$muttrc: not regular file"
[[ ! -r $muttrc ]] die "$muttrc: cannot open"
echo | mutt -F "$muttrc" -f /dev/null -e "push nnx" /dev/null
[snip]
P.S. If you run this script and get:
[[: command not found
[[: command not found
[[: command not found
[[: command not found
you need to upgrade to bash 2.x.
Just a side note - is there a reason you could not use the standard '['
test operator? Along with some quoting of possibly-null arguments, of
course.. something like:
[ -n "$1" ] muttrc="$1"
[ ! -e "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: no such file"
[ ! -f "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: not regular file"
[ ! -r "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: cannot open"
Just this way, it works for me in FreeBSD's /bin/sh, which is pretty much
as standard a Bourne shell as you can get..
G'luck,
Peter
--
This inert sentence is my body, but my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your
brain.
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:56:21PM -0800, Myrddin muttered: Just like the subject says. I see on the mutt homepage that gnupg is recommended over pgp. Are there reasons for this beyond the whole 'use gnu whenever possible because of their licensing'? Or are there real, functional reasons behind choosing gnupg over pgp? One reason is security. GPG is free software, PGP is captive. This means you can get the GPG source, read it and compile it for yourself. All very well, you may say, but I am not a programmer; I wouldn't know a security hole if it lept out and bit me on the kneecap. True enough, and I might add that even with more than 20 years experience as a software engineer I have not looked at the source for GPG. But I can rely on the fact that may other people, almost all of them outside the development team, have already done so. To paraphrase Eric Raymond's dictum in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, given enough eyeballs, all security holes are shallow. And GPG has had far more eyeballs go over it than recent versions of PGP. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Q: How display aliases?
Hi, I remember when first on mutt there was a command to display all my aliases and then highlight one and send mail from there. I can't seem to find it and wonder if I've turned it off in my .muttrc file... Thanks Jonathan -- "Hey, I think I finally got the hang of i-"
Re: Q: How display aliases?
Hi, Jonathan Gift wrote: I remember when first on mutt there was a command to display all my aliases and then highlight one and send mail from there. I press 'm', then tab. Thorsten
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 08:22:33AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey muttered: On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Charles Curley wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:56:21PM -0800, Myrddin muttered: One reason is security. GPG is free software, PGP is captive. This means you can get the GPG source, read it and compile it for yourself. you also compile PGP (and presumably find the time to read it). For Unix, the source has always been available, because of the nature of Unix distribution. Which I ought to have said. However, for Windows and Mac, NAI has only recently made source available. This is a change since the last time I looked at PGP, so I apologize for the error. However, their Mac and Windows source releases lag after the binary releases. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley
Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is clearsigned. Now, I what I would like to do is configure Mut so that it will clearsign automatically. I know there is a way to autosign in PGP/MIME format. But I am having trouble getting it to autosign in clearsign format. I am using Mutt 1.2.5i. I tried adding "set pgp_create_traditional=yes" to my .muttrc but that didn't work. I am also sending this message to the mutt-users list. Thanks! Bryan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjo453gACgkQ+bU2CMlTTuqx7gCgroT9Fe3a7u4yTbxVn6kOVJd4 iXMAn1T4zpSzWy56qx+lmKPt12Kvjh+V =QBJq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: question regarding gnupg in my regular signature
Hi, I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is clearsigned. Now, I what I would like to do is configure Mut so that it will clearsign automatically. I know there is a way to autosign in PGP/MIME format. But I am having trouble getting it to autosign in clearsign format. I am using Mutt 1.2.5i. I tried adding "set pgp_create_traditional=yes" to my .muttrc but that didn't work. I am also sending this message to the mutt-users list. Thanks! Bryan
Re: Error messages
Peter, At 2000/12/14/12:19 +0200 Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a side note - is there a reason you could not use the standard '[' test operator? Along with some quoting of possibly-null arguments, of course.. something like: [ -n "$1" ] muttrc="$1" [ ! -e "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: no such file" [ ! -f "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: not regular file" [ ! -r "$muttrc" ] die "$muttrc: cannot open" Of course, this would be O.K. I prefer the [[ ]] operator (found in ksh and bash 2.x) because it is smarter and more resistant to syntax errors that occur with [ ] if a variable is undefined. But certainly one can use [ ] and then double quote the variables within, as you have done. Just this way, it works for me in FreeBSD's /bin/sh, which is pretty much as standard a Bourne shell as you can get.. FreeBSD doesn't come with bash? (Maybe I should have used perl. :-) -- This inert sentence is my body, but my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your brain. Cool .sig. :-) David -- Live in a world of your own, but always welcome visitors.
Re: Error messages
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 07:37:47AM -0800, David Alban wrote: Of course, this would be O.K. I prefer the [[ ]] operator (found in ksh and bash 2.x) because it is smarter and more resistant to syntax errors that occur with [ ] if a variable is undefined. But certainly one can use [ ] and then double quote the variables within, as you have done. AFAIK, it also doesn't fork a process as well, using [[ ]] the tests are done internally to bash/ksh, and are thus much faster. -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/6B21489A 61F0 6138 BE7B FEBF A223 E9D1 BFE1 2065 6B21 489A PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 05:48:30AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: One reason is security. GPG is free software, PGP is captive. This means you can get the GPG source, read it and compile it for yourself. What? PGP source code has always been available. The source for PGP 6.5.8 can be downloaded from http://www.pgpi.org [...] To paraphrase Eric Raymond's dictum in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, given enough eyeballs, all security holes are shallow. And GPG has had far more eyeballs go over it than recent versions of PGP. Perhaps. If the goal is to use source that has been examined by many people over the years, PGP 2.6.3i is a good choice. The German government has given a grant to GPG. Would you trust PGP if it were funded by the American government? Is there some reason to believe the German government isn't just as interested in reading your private mail as the US government is? Understand, I'm not saying the German government has a nefarious motive for the grant to GPG, but if the US government did the same the rumors of back doors would be much more rampant than they are. -- "They have computers, and they may have other weapons of mass destruction." --Janet Reno, US Attorney General, 2.27.98
Re: Display name in index
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:58:26AM -0600, Gottipati Aravind wrote:
Hi
In the Index , in the sent-mail folder (mailbox)all the messages
show my name. I want to set it up so that the messages show the name of
the person I sent the mail to.. and not my name! Is there a way to ask
mutt to do this..? If its in the manual (I did not find it) give me the
section number.. Thank you
Yeah, try this:
set index_format="%4C %Z %[%b %d] %-15.15F (%4l) %s"
^
the default index_format is this:
"%4C %Z %{%b %d} %-15.15L (%4l) %s"
^
A couple of things, using the [ ] for the date converts the time the
message was sent to your local time, which is nice (IMHO), and the L,
changed to the F makes it show who the mail was sent to, if it was
sent by you:
%F author name, or recipient name if the message is from you
hope this helps,
--
Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
1024D/6B21489A 61F0 6138 BE7B FEBF A223 E9D1 BFE1 2065 6B21 489A
PGP signature
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is clearsigned. Please trim your lines to 72-76 chars per line. Thank you. IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers. In this situation, those who have configured their encrytion software to automatically import keys from these servers are penalised.
Re: Error messages
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:12:48AM -0500, Josh Huber wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 07:37:47AM -0800, David Alban wrote: Of course, this would be O.K. I prefer the [[ ]] operator (found in ksh and bash 2.x) because it is smarter and more resistant to syntax errors that occur with [ ] if a variable is undefined. But certainly one can use [ ] and then double quote the variables within, as you have done. AFAIK, it also doesn't fork a process as well, using [[ ]] the tests are done internally to bash/ksh, and are thus much faster. I dare you to name a relatively-modern version of csh, tcsh, bash, ksh or zsh, which does not have test/[ as a builtin ;) And to answer an unquoted question in David Alban's mail, FreeBSD does not come with bash in the base system, it does have both bash1 and bash2 in its Ports Collection, and as packages on the officially distributed FreeBSD CD's. G'luck, Peter -- What would this sentence be like if it weren't self-referential?
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On 2000.12.14, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Lars Hecking" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers. In this situation, those who have configured their encrytion software to automatically import keys from these servers are penalised. This has come up before in my conversation with others. I think that signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not. I think that sensitive material (code patches, or authoritative announcements of new software releases, or analyses of the latest Communications Prohibition Act, and the like) ought to be signed if possible; anyone who is concerned about the validity of the message can check the signature if they like. But, by and large, it doesn't matter. I don't really care whether it was really the person I know as Lars Hecking who wrote the message I'm replying to right now. It only matters what's said in this case, and not much who said it. If I want to confirm all this, I can write to Lars and he can sign it. If I sign my mail to Lars, he'll quite possibly even sign his reply. But chances are exceedingly small that any given item of information really needs to be corroborated. Since PGP became available, I've been asked only a handful of times to resend something with a signature. I'm reluctant to believe that's only because people don't know that I have a signing key. Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the server that I use, only to discover that the signed material doesn't even need validation, is somewhat irritating at times - semi-political privacy agenda or no. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: Error messages
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:27:54PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: I dare you to name a relatively-modern version of csh, tcsh, bash, ksh or zsh, which does not have test/[ as a builtin ;) Ok, you got me there. I'm sure they all have this as a builtin, but was that at least the historical reason for this? I seem to remember this being a reason to use [[ ]] in the past. Thanks for the tip, :) -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/6B21489A 61F0 6138 BE7B FEBF A223 E9D1 BFE1 2065 6B21 489A PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 08:17:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] muttered: On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 05:48:30AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: One reason is security. GPG is free software, PGP is captive. This means you can get the GPG source, read it and compile it for yourself. What? PGP source code has always been available. The source for PGP 6.5.8 can be downloaded from http://www.pgpi.org Quite so, and I have already acknowledged this in a previous email. [...] To paraphrase Eric Raymond's dictum in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, given enough eyeballs, all security holes are shallow. And GPG has had far more eyeballs go over it than recent versions of PGP. Perhaps. If the goal is to use source that has been examined by many people over the years, PGP 2.6.3i is a good choice. The German government has given a grant to GPG. Would you trust PGP if it were funded by the American government? Is there some reason to believe the German government isn't just as interested in reading your private mail as the US government is? I trust no government any further than I can throw it. I am aware of the German government grant, as it is described on the GPG web site. Indeed, as webmaster for the Wyoming Libertarian Party, I posted a link to the GPG web site, with an appropriate warning. (http://www.geocities.com/wyolp/more.links.html#TOC91) As a technical issue, free software, regardless of who funded it, is less likely to have a security hole, back door or otherwise, than captive software, regardless of who funded it. I don't know the terms of the German grant to the FSF for funding GPG; perhaps the test is on their web site (but, alas, I am not literate in German). Nor do I know whether those GNUisances at the FSF have honored it in its entirety. But I have sufficient experience in American secret military and NSA "Top Secret -- Burn Before Reading" type work to guess at the terms of such a grant from the US government, and again sufficient experience with US companies doing that sort of work to guess their response. Is the German government just as much a police state as the US? I'm not sure, but I suspect that -- in spite of their Orwellian ban on teaching the history of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and other evidence -- they are not. Understand, I'm not saying the German government has a nefarious motive for the grant to GPG, but if the US government did the same the rumors of back doors would be much more rampant than they are. And possibly such rumors would be justified. On the other tentacle, perhaps the German government funded the development of GPG because they were worried about the American government reading their email? But didn't want to say so publicly? -- "They have computers, and they may have other weapons of mass destruction." --Janet Reno, US Attorney General, 2.27.98 Quite. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley PGP signature
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Champion wrote: Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the And on a slow box (mine) it even freezes during signature verification. It would be much better if Mutt has an option to check signatures on demand and not every time you open that message. Werner
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Lars Hecking wrote: IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers. Well, that depends on the content of the mail. But you are right, for the bulk of ML traffic, there is no need for signing. Werner
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
This is getting kind of off-topic for this list ... Is the German government just as much a police state as the US? I'm not sure, but I suspect that -- in spite of their Orwellian ban on teaching the history of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and other evidence -- they are not. I am German, and I have absolutely no idea what you are refering to by your statement. What ban? What "evidence"? On the other topic: it seems that all Western countries are moving towards police state, in the disguises of "safety", "security" "fight against crime and child porn" etc. While many republican constitutions are based on ideas that were developed (or put in writing) by philosophers a couple of hundred years ago (separation of powers, protect the individual from the State), a shift of paradigm seems to have taken place. Now it's the State who protects its subjects, even at the cost of civil liberties. Witness the ongoing discussions, legislative attempts and actual legislation (eg. RIP) about monitoring all kinds of electronic communications, or the introduction of a new mobile phone generation with with builtin GPS. The general public is complacent, the media don't pick up. Industry is only opposing these things if their means of making money are affected (i.e. rarely). And all the piecemeal changes over the years taken together have way outclassed Orwell already. The US govt seems to be a driving force in these efforts, even on the international stage. Sorry for the outburst ...
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Hi, this is certainly ot, but you made a really wrong assumption (I hope) about Germany and I don't want to let that stand. I don't know the terms of the German grant to the FSF for funding GPG; perhaps the test is on their web site (but, alas, I am not literate in German). The site's native language is english: http://www.gnupg.de/presse.en.html I'm not sure, but I suspect that -- in spite of their Orwellian ban on teaching the history of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and other evidence You are either totally misinformed or denying that anything bad happened in these years. Which one? During my time in various schools, I had to take three classes about nazism in Germany. This is typical. On the other tentacle, perhaps the German government funded the development of GPG because they were worried about the American government reading their email? But didn't want to say so publicly? That and they possibly even like GnuPG's motto: Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs 1. Secrecy of letters as well as sanctity of mail, telephone and telegraph are inviolable. Basic Law, Article 10, Paragraph 1 Thorsten
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Werner Koch muttered: On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Champion wrote: Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the And on a slow box (mine) it even freezes during signature verification. It would be much better if Mutt has an option to check signatures on demand and not every time you open that message. Try: set pgp_verify_sig=ask-yes -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:59:09PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: You are either totally misinformed or denying that anything bad happened in these years. Which one? During my time in various schools, I had to take three classes about nazism in Germany. This is typical. Yup. We're the good guys, and when we vote, all our votes are counted. We have laws about dataprotection and security of data in the IT. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Engineerinnominate AG Diplom-Informatiker the linux architects tel: +49.30.308806-62 fax: -698 www.innominate.com PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:59:09PM +0100, Thorsten Haude muttered: Hi, this is certainly ot, but you made a really wrong assumption (I hope) about Germany and I don't want to let that stand. Nor I; thank you for the correction. I don't know the terms of the German grant to the FSF for funding GPG; perhaps the test is on their web site (but, alas, I am not literate in German). The site's native language is english: http://www.gnupg.de/presse.en.html Right, and I read what I could find on the grant in English. I'm not sure, but I suspect that -- in spite of their Orwellian ban on teaching the history of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and other evidence You are either totally misinformed or denying that anything bad happened in these years. Which one? During my time in various schools, I had to take three classes about nazism in Germany. This is typical. Then totally misinformed. It was my understanding that very little was taught on that period in German govermnent schools. On the other tentacle, perhaps the German government funded the development of GPG because they were worried about the American government reading their email? But didn't want to say so publicly? That and they possibly even like GnuPG's motto: Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs 1. Secrecy of letters as well as sanctity of mail, telephone and telegraph are inviolable. Basic Law, Article 10, Paragraph 1 Cool! Is that a quote from the Constitution? Or is "Basic Law" a different set of laws? If the former, it is much stronger than the American equivalent! As you say, this is decidedly OT. Having made an assertion on the list, I thought it appropriate to retract and apologize on the list. If you would care to respond to those questions privately, I would appreciate it. Thorsten -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley PGP signature
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thu 14-Dec-2000 at 11:03:13AM -0600, David Champion wrote: This has come up before in my conversation with others. I think that signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not. I think that sensitive material (code patches, or authoritative announcements of new software releases, or analyses of the latest Communications Prohibition Act, and the like) ought to be signed if possible; anyone who is concerned about the validity of the message can check the signature if they like. I'm very inconsistent with signing mail (especially if I know it's going to end up being viewed in Outlook) - but really all I'm doing is encouraging people to think that _sometimes_ I don't sign my mail. What this means is that next time somebody forges my identity, nobody will think it's a forgery (they will just think I forgot to sign again). Really, you should be signing everything or nothing. Bruno -- http://bruno.postle.net/
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Hi, On 00-12-14, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: Yup. We're the good guys Well, I wouldn't go this far. Thorsten
compressed mailbox mutt
Hi Listers, I have downloaded the new mutt 1.2.5i rpm with compressed folder option enabled. I have created a gzip file oldlih.gz ( tar -zcvf oldlih nov2000 ). Here nov2000 is the archieve of the mailing list mailbox of nov. The new /etc/Muttrc has got the following additional hooks for compressed folders : # gzip open-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -cd %f %t" close-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -c %t %f" append-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -c %t %f" # # bzip2 open-hook \\.bz2$ "bzip2 -cd %f %t" close-hook \\.bz2$ "bzip2 -c %t %f" append-hook \\.bz2$ "bzip2 -c %t %f" But when I try to access this oldlih.gz I am getting the message for a split second decompressing oldlih.gz and than the mutt bar displays the message no mailbox. What's wrong ? I have even tried adding the above hooks in my ~/.mutt/muttrc. Same thing happens. Can anybody help me out ? Thanks in advance. Regards -- Rajesh Fowkar /\ * How I Configured my SiS6215 Card ? Visit My Web Site * WebSite:http://rajesh.computers.webjump.com * Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Address:KURTARKAR NAGARI,BLDG-C,T4,3RD FLOOR,SHANTINAGAR,PONDA-GOA.(INDIA) * * Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future,concentrate the mind * on the present moment. - Buddha \/
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 07:44:57PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: Yup. We're the good guys Well, I wouldn't go this far. We're considerably better than the most :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Engineerinnominate AG Diplom-Informatiker the linux architects tel: +49.30.308806-62 fax: -698 www.innominate.com PGP signature
Re: compressed mailbox mutt
Please trim your long lines next time. But when I try to access this oldlih.gz I am getting the message for a split second decompressing oldlih.gz and than the mutt bar displays the message no mailbox. What's wrong ? It's called *compressed* folders patch - not "tar'ed and compressed" folders patch.
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Ralf Hildebrandt writes: On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 07:44:57PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: Yup. We're the good guys Well, I wouldn't go this far. We're considerably better than the most :) Sure. "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." Heard that before. Didn't like it.
Re: special reply_regexp
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Daniel Kollar wrote: Hi, thank you the regexp, but mutt still does not show threads. I'm puzzled. An example of the subjects, which should be recognized as a thread is following: Subject: [ifc-ml:2583] Re: Illegal circuit data for smincut Subject: [ifc-ml:2584] Re: Illegal circuit data for smincut The sorting method is "thread", and there is of course "strict_threads" unset. Somehow the regexp still does not work. Any idea? The problem here, as I understand it, is that mutt expects reply subjects to be of the form reply expressionparent subject But certain list servers construct original subjects like this [ifc-ml:] base subject and replies like this [ifc-ml:] Re: base subject Note that part of the parent subject line has been removed from the reply subject line. Even if you construct a reply_regexp that matches "[ifc-ml:] Re: ", mutt still can't identify the parent message because the base subjects don't match: mutt is looking for a parent message whose subject is "base subject", but the subject of the parent message is actually "[ifc-ml:] base subject". Mutt's threading would only work if the replies were of the form [ifc-ml:] Re: [ifc-ml:] base subject reply ID base message ID I hope that was clear. I think the only solution available to us is to change the internals of mutt to recognize this sort of mangled subject. Perhaps "we" could add a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to ignore when threading messages. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Generation Unit | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Myrddin -- ...and then Myrddin said... % Just like the subject says. My guess, though I'm not one of the developers, is that gnupg is considered to be more flexible and capable and thus a better tool to use with mutt. Yeah, the licensing is great (which is great for anyone writing hooks to it in these days when linking to another web page can be considered a legally-prosecutable infringement), and yeah, it's open source (though, as was pointed out, the PGP sources are available), but I would think that the important thing is what it can do. I have personally found it to be more flexible and capable, and couldn't possible manage the mess of keys that I have without gpg's multiple keyring capability just for a start. There, and I didn't mention Germany once. ... D'oh! :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: compressed mailbox mutt
Rajesh Fowkar muttered: I have downloaded the new mutt 1.2.5i rpm with compressed folder option enabled. I have created a gzip file oldlih.gz ( tar -zcvf oldlih nov2000 ) ^^^ ^^ The result is a tared and gziped file named 'oldlih'. Here nov2000 is the archieve of the mailing list mailbox of nov. The new /etc/Muttrc has got the following additional hooks for compressed folders : # gzip open-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -cd %f %t" close-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -c %t %f" append-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -c %t %f" First of all these hooks only work with files named *.gz. They won't be executed on your 'oldlih' file! I don't use the compressed foler patch, does it work with tared files? If not, mutt won't be able to read the result that open-hook produces. Remember it's a tar file now, since gzip uncompressed it. But when I try to access this oldlih.gz I am getting the message for a split second decompressing oldlih.gz and than the mutt bar displays the message no mailbox. What's wrong ? Ah, the patch cannot handle tar files, so don't use tar! For a single mbox file it's useless anyway. For testing I would suggest to not modify the original file: gzip -c nov2000 oldlih.gz; mutt -f oldlih.gz HTH, Michael -- An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'. PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: compressed mailbox mutt
Rajesh -- Did you know that your clock is off? ...and then Rajesh Fowkar said... % Hi Listers, % % I have downloaded the new mutt 1.2.5i rpm with compressed folder option enabled. Yay :-) % % I have created a gzip file oldlih.gz ( tar -zcvf oldlih nov2000 ). Here nov2000 is the archieve of the mailing list mailbox of nov. The new /etc/Muttrc has got the following additional hooks for compressed folders : Assuming that nov2000 is an mbox file, all you need to do is gzip it like gzip nov2000 mv nov2000.gz oldlih.gz (also assuming that, for some reason, you want the different name). This will work fine with the compressed folders patch and, I think, the hooks you had. Now, if this is a maildir and you really do need to use tar, you're stepping out into unknown territory. I don't think it unreasonable to think that the compressed folders patch could handle recursion so that you could specify open-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -cd %f %t" open-hook \\.tar$ "cd %t ; tar xpf %f" close-hook \\.gz$ "gzip -c %t %f" close-hook \\.tar$ "cd %t ; tar cpf %f ." or similar (not going near the whole issue of the leading path name contained in the tar file but skirting it with the cd and the .) and then open a tarred and compressed maildir stored as nov2000.tar.gz or some such -- but I haven't ever gotten around to trying it :-) :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Moin, "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." ^ That would be 'Leitkultur' now. Thorsten
Re: special reply_regexp
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:12:37AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote: [ifc-ml:] Re: [ifc-ml:] base subject reply ID base message ID I hope that was clear. I think the only solution available to us is to change the internals of mutt to recognize this sort of mangled subject. Perhaps "we" could add a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to ignore when threading messages. Is this necessary? I'm using: set reply_regexp= '^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*' and it's threading mailing lists of this type for me... for example: [ruby-talk:7097] Rubyize this method [ruby-talk:7099] Re: Rubyize this method [ruby-talk:7104] Re: Rubyize this method are all threaded properly. (well, not as good as messages with In-Reply-To: but better than having threads scattered all over the folder) perhaps the regex wasn't quite right? -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/6B21489A 61F0 6138 BE7B FEBF A223 E9D1 BFE1 2065 6B21 489A PGP signature
Re: question regarding gnupg in my regular signature
Bryan, et al -- ...and then Bryan K. Walton said... % Hi, % I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is clearsigned. You may have intended for it to be clearsigned, but it was in fact simply not signed at all. % Now, I what I would like to do is configure Mut so that it will clearsign automatically. I know there is a way to autosign in PGP/MIME format. But I am having trouble getting it to autosign in clearsign format. I am using Mutt 1.2.5i. I tried adding "set pgp_create_traditional=yes" to my .muttrc but that didn't work. I am also sending this message to the mutt-users list. Do you have any hooks which might reset that to "no"? Have you, in fact, managed to clearsign a message other than this attempt? Just in case you haven't tried it, compose your message and then, from mutt's compose window before you go to send it, enter :set ?pgp_create_traditional and see what it says. If it doesn't set yes, then set it to yes and *then* send it to see what you get. % % Thanks! % Bryan HTH HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: gnupg vs pgp? Really getting OT
* On Thursday, December 14, Thorsten Haude wrote: "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." ^ That would be 'Leitkultur' now. This 'Leitkultur' discussion you Germans are having these days does send chills down the spines of your fellow European neighbours. Jesper -- "But how can one be warm alone?" Jesper Holmberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
Moin, To get ontopic again: On 00-12-14, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: - - - [-- PGP-Ausgabe folgt (aktuelle Zeit: Thu Dec 14 21:04:32 2000) --] gpg: Unterschrift vom Don 14 Dez 2000 20:02:38 CET, DSA Schlüssel ID 90F89A7D gpg: Schlüssels 90F89A7D von wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net wird angefordert ... gpg: Keine gültigen OpenPGP-Daten gefunden. gpg: Anzahl insgesamt bearbeiteter Schlüssel: 0 gpg: Unterschrift kann nicht geprüft werden: Öffentlicher Schlüssel nicht gefunden [-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --] - - - Why is that? Thorsten
Re: gnupg vs pgp?
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:05:53PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: [-- PGP-Ausgabe folgt (aktuelle Zeit: Thu Dec 14 21:04:32 2000) --] gpg: Unterschrift vom Don 14 Dez 2000 20:02:38 CET, DSA Schlüssel ID 90F89A7D gpg: Schlüssels 90F89A7D von wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net wird angefordert ... gpg: Keine gültigen OpenPGP-Daten gefunden. gpg: Anzahl insgesamt bearbeiteter Schlüssel: 0 gpg: Unterschrift kann nicht geprüft werden: Öffentlicher Schlüssel nicht gefunden [-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --] - - - Why is that? I don't know -- I submitted the server to germany.keyserver.net, but it doesn't seem to be redistributed. Thoughts? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Engineerinnominate AG Diplom-Informatiker the linux architects tel: +49.30.308806-62 fax: -698 www.innominate.com PGP signature
Trying to wrap my messages at 72 characters
Hi, It has been advised that I set my .muttrc to wrap lines after 72 characters. I have looked into how to do this and have some questions for the list. I looked around on the web for how to do this and found the following: set editor ="vi -c 'set tw=72'" But this didn't work. vi told me that it didn't understand tw. So I continued my search and found something that does work: set editor ="vi -c 'set wl=72'" vi understands the wl. However, when I begin to compose a message in mutt, the addition of this "wrap command" has the effect of positioning my cursor at the bottom of my signature, and not at the top of the screen. Is there something I can tell Mutt to make my cursor begin at the very top of the message that I am composing? Thanks, Bryan
Re: Trying to wrap my messages at 72 characters
Couple of things for you: Quoting Bryan Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, It has been advised that I set my .muttrc to wrap lines after 72 characters. I have looked into how to do this and have some questions for the list. I looked around on the web for how to do this and found the following: set editor ="vi -c 'set tw=72'" this may have been seen a 'vi' but tw=textwidth is a Vim thing. If you are unfamiliar with what Vim is, you should check out http://www.vim.org But this didn't work. vi told me that it didn't understand tw. So I continued my search and found something that does work: set editor ="vi -c 'set wl=72'" vi understands the wl. However, when I begin to compose a message in mutt, the addition of this "wrap command" has the effect of positioning my cursor at the bottom of my signature, and not at the top of the screen. Is there something I can tell Mutt to make my cursor begin at the very top of the message that I am composing? set editor="vim -c ':0;/^To: '" The above goes a little beyond what you were asking for, but you might like it ;): it does a ':0' go to top of file, and then '/^To: ', search for first line that has To: in it at the very beginning. Whether or not you use the Mutt option to have the to/cc/etc lines in the editor, that last part may not be of any use to you. HTH, -Doug -- *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Douglas L. Potts Spectral Systems, Inc. Url: http://www.bigfoot.com/~pottsdl "They call it paradise, I don't know why. Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye." - Eagles, Hell Freezes Over, 'The Last Resort' *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Re: Trying to wrap my messages at 72 characters
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000, Bryan Walton wrote: But this didn't work. vi told me that it didn't understand tw. So I continued my search and found something that does work: set editor ="vi -c 'set wl=72'" vi understands the wl. However, when I begin to compose a message in mutt, the addition of this "wrap command" has the effect of positioning my cursor at the bottom of my signature, and not at the top of the screen. Is there something I can tell Mutt to make my cursor begin at the very top of the message that I am composing? On top of what Doug said, could wl be conflicting with wm? I think wm gets preference. -Ken -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]AIM: ScopusFest
Re: Trying to wrap my messages at 72 characters
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 03:53:59PM -0500, Douglas L . Potts wrote: set editor="vim -c ':0;/^To: '" it does a ':0' go to top of file, and then '/^To: ', search for first line that has To: in it at the very beginning. Whether or not you use the Mutt option to have the to/cc/etc lines in the editor, that last part may not be of any use to you. Cool. I played, I stole. Thanks Douglas. I changed it a bit, though: set editor="vim -c ':0;/^$'" So no matter what your header info contains (mine ends with an 'X-Priority'), you'll get placed at the first blank line that follows it. -- thks.jeff
Re: special reply_regexp
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 02:53:49PM -0500, Josh Huber wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:12:37AM -0800, Gary Johnson wrote: I think the only solution available to us is to change the internals of mutt to recognize this sort of mangled subject. Perhaps "we" could add a subject_ignore_regexp to tell mutt what part of a subject line to ignore when threading messages. Is this necessary? I'm using: set reply_regexp= '^(\[[a-z0-9:-]+\][ \t]*)?(re([\[0-9\]+])*|aw):[\t]*' and it's threading mailing lists of this type for me... for example: [ruby-talk:7097] Rubyize this method [ruby-talk:7099] Re: Rubyize this method [ruby-talk:7104] Re: Rubyize this method are all threaded properly. (well, not as good as messages with In-Reply-To: but better than having threads scattered all over the folder) perhaps the regex wasn't quite right? That's strange. I tried your regex (with the addition of a space in the first range) in the w3m-dev-en list where I've been trying on and off for a long time to get one to work, and it didn't work, so I visited some other mailboxes, then went back to w3m-dev-en to get an example of it not working to use in this reply and voila, it works now! So that partially explains why I could never get a reply_regex to work for that list: mutt must apply reply_regex only upon certain events and I wasn't triggering one of those events after each modification of reply_regex. So thanks very much for setting me straight! It's nice to have that threading working now. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Generation Unit | Spokane, Washington, USA
mutt courier-imap
Hi all.
I'm currently trying to be happy with mutt running against
courier-imapd, but I'm currently experiencing grief and frustration.
Basically, what I want is to use procmail to split out mailing list mail
into separate mailboxes like I was doing before I moved to imap. In my
mutt config, I defined these mailboxes such that they should be checked
for mail, and all was fine. Since moving to imap, however, I can't seem
to get mutt to check the mailboxes on the imap server. I can manually
change to the mailboxes, but mutt doesn't seem to know when they get new
mail, and it makes me sad.
In my mutt config, I'm using the format: {server/ssl}INBOX.foo for the
mailboxes. That format seems to be correct, for when I get into the
directory browser and hit TAB, and then select a mailbox, I change into
that mailbox. I've also defined a local mailbox, and mutt sees that
just fine.
Can anyone point me in a good direction for solving this problem? I'm
frustrated because I can't seem to figure out if the problem is with
configuration or if it's implementation problems of the client and/or
server.
I'm using mutt 1.2.5i (debian potato package recompiled with ssl
support) against courier-imap 0.31.
TIA for any advice.
Re: mutt courier-imap
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:21:34PM -0500, Michael MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] is thought to have said: Can anyone point me in a good direction for solving this problem? I'm frustrated because I can't seem to figure out if the problem is with configuration or if it's implementation problems of the client and/or server. I'm using mutt 1.2.5i (debian potato package recompiled with ssl support) against courier-imap 0.31. TIA for any advice. I've found that using the mutt development version 1.3.12i works much better for IMAP support. Besides fixing the problem with notifications it deals with other things better as well (like expunging messages from an IMAP folder not requiring a re-download of all of the headers in the mailbox). However while it is still beta software and has core dumped on me a few times, I think the IMAP support in 1.3.12i is much more solid than in 1.2.5i HTH Tabor -- Tabor J. Wells[EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator Art Technology Group http://www.atg.com
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:03:13AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
I think that
signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential
source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not.
[...]
anyone who is
concerned about the validity of the message can check the signature if
they like.
But, by and large, it doesn't matter. I don't really care whether it
was really the person I know as Lars Hecking who wrote the message I'm
replying to right now. It only matters what's said in this case, and
not much who said it. If I want to confirm all this, I can write to
Lars and he can sign it. If I sign my mail to Lars, he'll quite
possibly even sign his reply.
But the signature can only be checked if it's present. If the sig
isn't present, you need additional steps. ...a small example: I get
annoyed before going on a long trip, and I write an email in which I
write things that are uncharacteristic of me (because I'm annoyed). A
day later, when you receive my mail, you'd like to verify that it was
really I who wrote that, so you send me email asking if I really wrote
that. Oh, well...you're left wondering until I get back say a month
and a half later, because when you do your further inquiry, I've
already left. Now if I'd have signed it, you have the option of
configuring anything in your mail system over which you have control
(~/.procmailrc, ~/.muttrc, ~/.gnupg/options to name a potential few)
to do anything you want, including choosing not to open my signed
message, sending it off to another box to be read later, write
something/modify Mutt to fetch possibly nonexistant keys in the
background, specify a different pager that asynchronously verifies the
signature (e.g., pop-up X window or something)...at least by signing
it, I've given you the tool with which you can do it if you choose.
And you can also choose not to do anything at all with my message.
[...]
Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze
while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the
server that I use, only to discover that the signed material doesn't
even need validation, is somewhat irritating at times - semi-political
privacy agenda or no.
I would agree it can be irritating at times. But I would also
respectfully argue that due to your configuration, you have only
yourself to blame for your irritation. IMHO, you just need a little
creative thinking ("hmmm...could I use something in a procmail recipe
to fetch keys in the background and add them to my keyring?") in order
to reduce or eliminate your irritation. Computers are so wonderful
because so many of them are so flexible. I'm also willing to admit,
though, that often with flexibility comes complexity.
P.S. -- I'll skip the digital signature this time. Dontcha just hate
it when you ask someone not to do something (e.g., a "Jeopardy!"
format message), but then they do it anyway???
--
Oo---o, Oo---o, O-weem-oh-wum-ooo-ayyy
In the jungle, the silicon jungle, the process sleeps tonight.
Joe Philipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.philippsfamily.org/Joe/
public PGP/GPG key 0xFA029353 available via http://www.keyserver.net
