Re: line editor command history behavior
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote: I've just noticed that if you are cycling through the command history and abort with a ^G, the next time you invoke the line editor you are placed at the point in history list at which you aborted. example: :command 1 :command 2 :command 3 :command 4 :command 5 cycle up the history to 'command 3', abort and invoke the line editor again. Hit the Up key and you are at 'command 2' which is not the last command you entered. Well, in a sense you are at the last line you entered are you not ? You entered it through cycling to it+1. You aborted the current action which leaves the history pointer at current-action -1 . It seems strange, but if you think about it then it is logical. -- Regards Cliff
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: the only quasi-official reference i've been able to find on the Mail-Followup-To header is: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt while i think that this becoming standard would be a Good Thing, since the draft is from 1997, it would seem unlikely that it will be adopted does anyone else have information on what it would take to set the proverbial wheel turning on getting this adopted as some sort of official standard? There are many RFC's in use as standards that never got beyond being draft standards officially I believe. If anyone wants to put some energy into this try and get Microsoft to adhere to a few standard standards with regard to email, that would be some achievement. To answer your question I should think there is zilch you can do about it. Sounds to me like the pine-people are just batting you off. Inter-operabilty.. who needs it ..lol. Wietse Venema, the author of Postfix, remarked once on the amount of code he had in his software to get around broken mailer implementations. -- Regards Cliff
Re: a hook entered upon sending a message?
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 01:34]: | % | If it really bothers you that much, unset $signature and $sig_dashes and | % | then modify your editor command to append your signature file onto the | % | temp file after the real editor completes. Note that re-editing a file | % | will cause duplicate signatures, so you might also tell your editor to | % | find the sig_dashes and delete from there down before jumping back to | % | the beginning of the message. | % | | % | Yeah, I figured out it'd be probably left for vim to do this. Then | % | again, (I'm no vim-hacker) there are at least three ways to quit | % | from vim, saving the buffer, which means I'd have to noremap all of | % | them... Unless I'm missing a way to avoid this. Ok, time to mail | % | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) | % | % What about rebinding 'y' to filter the message through some script? | % That's probably easier. | | Not a bad idea... Wrap $sendmail instead of $editor. Then again, my option doesn't work when you are pgp_signing or pgp_encrypting your emails... ;( | % | The code is left as an exercise for the reader ;-) | % | % You lazy ... ;) | | You got that right! ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. -Dorothy msg21011/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: a bunch of newbie questions
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 01:26]: [context] | Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was set to | ask-yes, but I sure hated mark_old (though I want stuff marked old at | times) :-) That was actually the first option I unset ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Q: What is the burning question on the mind of every dyslexic existentialist? A: Is there a dog? msg21012/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Cliff Sarginson wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:21:38PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: the only quasi-official reference i've been able to find on the Mail-Followup-To header is: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt There are many RFC's in use as standards that never got beyond being draft standards officially I believe. well their point seems to be that since it doesn't appear in rfc 2822, it's likely that the proposal was rejected. i don't disagree with your point; however it's difficult to push other vendors to add this feature to their products if it's _not_ a standard. if outlook express were the one pushing it instead of mutt, perhaps there might be some chance of it being adopted without being standard. at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. To answer your question I should think there is zilch you can do about it. Sounds to me like the pine-people are just batting you off. possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt users) are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's true). Inter-operabilty.. who needs it ..lol. Wietse Venema, the author of Postfix, remarked once on the amount of code he had in his software to get around broken mailer implementations. yes i've heard him mention this many times; as usual, he's quite correct. the fact is that we all have to deal with non-standard compliant things every day. that doesn't mean that complying with those standards isn't a good thing to strive for of course... but we do live in a nasty world, and we have to deal with nasty stuff frequently. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
Re: Locking mboxes
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it % if that is what you are asking. Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know whether there are right and wrong ways to implement NFS so that locking works or if it's just plain always bad. The main trouble with NFS is that it's stateless, and locking is statefull. So you have two opposed systems trying to work with each other. Steve -- NetTek Ltd tel +44-(0)20 7483 1169 fax +44-(0)20 7483 2455 Flat 2,43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park,London NW3 4LU mobile 07775 755503 Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body only]
Re: color problems after upgrade
I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the message body, and the main index background is still white on black. perhaps your $TERM is xterm-color (except for hardcoded applications that ignore $TERM, you won't see default colors working properly in that case). -- Thomas E. Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Locking mboxes
Steve, et al -- ...and then Steve Kennedy said... % On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:45:45PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % % % I would not design a production quality mail setup that relied on it % % if that is what you are asking. % Well, that's one way to answer it :-) I don't know enough to know % whether there are right and wrong ways to implement NFS so that % locking works or if it's just plain always bad. % % The main trouble with NFS is that it's stateless, and locking is % statefull. So you have two opposed systems trying to work with % each other. *click* Oh, now I get it. The light goes on. Of course; that makes sense. % % Steve Thanks a bunch! % % -- % NetTek Ltd tel +44-(0)20 7483 1169 fax +44-(0)20 7483 2455 % Flat 2,43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park,London NW3 4LU % mobile 07775 755503 Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body only] :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21017/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt There are many RFC's in use as standards that never got beyond being draft standards officially I believe. well their point seems to be that since it doesn't appear in rfc 2822, it's likely that the proposal was rejected. Even less official than the above draft, there is http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html which gives some arguments about why implementing MFT. i don't disagree with your point; however it's difficult to push other vendors to add this feature to their products if it's _not_ a standard. if outlook express were the one pushing it instead of mutt, perhaps there might be some chance of it being adopted without being standard. at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. Any idea of which MUAs are implementing MFT, apart from Mutt? Gnus? It seems that some MTA (qmail at least) also set a MFT header if they are given a list of mailing-lists. possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt users) are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's true). This might not be the Right Thing, but this is the best in absence of any other solution to the Reply-To issues... -- Cedric
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Cedric Duval wrote: Even less official than the above draft, there is http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html which gives some arguments about why implementing MFT. yeah i noticed this one as well, although given the author i decided not to mention it (although it does make some good points, mr. bernstein is not exactly known for his sunny disposition or ablity to play nice with others). at this point, almost no 'popular' MUAs honor this header. Any idea of which MUAs are implementing MFT, apart from Mutt? Gnus? well there's a list on the site you mention above... i don't think there are too many others. It seems that some MTA (qmail at least) also set a MFT header if they are given a list of mailing-lists. yes. this seems like kind of a bad idea to me, and something best left to MUAs - even if they are slow to adopt this, it seems as if enforcing this in an MTA might cause some problems. for instance if i set the 'Reply-To' header to my address, but my mail server, running qmail (mine doesn't really) adds a 'Mail-Followup-To' header with the list address. Of course i don't use mutt (actually i do, but just suppose) so i have no easy way of overriding this header. now when someone using an MUA that honors this header responds, it won't respond to my reply-to address. i realize that this example might be a bit far fetched, but it's just one example. possibly so. however as i've said, insisting that we (ie mutt users) are doing the Right Thing is a bit presumptious (even if it's true). This might not be the Right Thing, but this is the best in absence of any other solution to the Reply-To issues... agreed! i guess i was just trying to say that most of us communicate with non-mutt users frequently (i am the only mutt user at my work, in my family, etc. etc.) and so it's to our advantage to try and push for things like this to be made standard. -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
Re: Limiting folder list
Thomas Hurst muttered: I've got quite a few folders, but a number of them haven't had any new mail for the last few days - is there a function similar to limit to limit the folder view to, for instance, folders with a last modified date 24 hours? No realy what you want but, don't put them in the mailboxlist. So they won't show up when you press ctabtab. HTH, Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: color problems after upgrade
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:58:02AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the message body, and the main index background is still white on black. perhaps your $TERM is xterm-color (except for hardcoded applications that ignore $TERM, you won't see default colors working properly in that case). it is rxvt in both cases - the difference, other than the mutt versions is that one is running to a remote display (that one is good) and one is local - the display in both cases is the dame box. aloha, dave msg21021/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: color problems after upgrade
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Dave Price wrote: On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:58:02AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: I tried you colors, and those object where default is specified as the background, the aterm background shows thru - everything else - the message body, and the main index background is still white on black. perhaps your $TERM is xterm-color (except for hardcoded applications that ignore $TERM, you won't see default colors working properly in that case). it is rxvt in both cases - the difference, other than the mutt versions is that one is running to a remote display (that one is good) and one is local - the display in both cases is the dame box. rereading - I addressed the wrong point. You have to use 'default' to get the background to show through in all cases (except where mutt is doing the wrong thing, of course ;-). -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Bug reports - where do they go?
Hi all. I've got a couple of potential bugs, and some questions on how to debug/report them. First, the bugs: o Mutt seems to be losing track of the number of new messages. Every now and then, I end up with New: 1 in the status bar at the bottom of the screen, but there aren't any new messages (pressing Tab (next-new) replies with No new messages. When I resync the mailbox ($) mutt then corrects itself and shows no new messages. I haven't seen this problem enough times to work out a pattern or a cause. o Every now and then, while sorting the mailbox, mutt is crashing on me with a Bus Error, and dumping core. Now the questions. Has anyone seen these before? I've had a look at the mutt-dev mailing list, and nothing similar seems to have been posted recently.# I guess that if the core dumps are going to be any use to the developers, I'm going to have to recompile with the relevant debugging options switched on. How do I do this? I might even have a go at trying to work out what happened myself (I've got a reasonable amount of experience running xxgdb, albeit with my own C program, and not from a core dump). Is there anything built into the mutt environment to help with this? What is the etiquette for reporting a bug? Do I just post to the mutt-dev mailing list? Run muttbug? If I run muttbug, can it do a better job if I've compiled mutt with the relevant debug options? (I've just seen below that it might have been compiled with debug already - is this the default for the 1.3 branch?) Setup: tabby(21)% mutt -v Mutt 1.3.23.2i (2001-11-08) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: SunOS 5.8 (sun4u) Compile options: -DOMAIN +DEBUG -HOMESPOOL -USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK -DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP +USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL -USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META -HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET +HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV +ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID +HAVE_GETADDRINFO -ISPELL SENDMAIL=/usr/lib/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/u/dsmith/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/u/dsmith/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh -MIXMASTER To contact the developers, please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. To report a bug, please use the flea(1) utility. Incoming mail comes from an imap server - opening the imap port gives me IMAP4rev1 v12.250, if that means anything to anyone. TIA... -- David Smith Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 (direct) STMicroelectronicsFax: +44 (0)1454 617910 1000 Aztec WestTINA (ST only): (065) 2380 Almondsbury Home: 01454 616963 BRISTOLMobile: 07932 642724 BS32 4SQ Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: color problem - worked around
I'll have to try building 1.3.23i and see if I can spot the problem (when I'm at home). I did build one or two of the 1.3.x series, but just to check on progress... setting the color of the normal object to have a default background makes all the difference. it is not even necessary to set the body attribute unless you want a different foreground color. thanks for all the tips guys (when in doubt, rtfm) aloha, dave msg21027/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird e-mail headers
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:26:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure how to phrase this My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4, 2001^M This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that it seems to be screwing up my procmail ruleset. Any idea how to fix this? My mail is fetched via fetchmail from an IMAP server via an SSL connection. Any help offered will be appreciated. Thanks! Is the IMAP server running on Windows? Looks like a CR/LF problem to me. -- David Smith Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 (direct) STMicroelectronicsFax: +44 (0)1454 617910 1000 Aztec WestTINA (ST only): (065) 2380 Almondsbury Home: 01454 616963 BRISTOLMobile: 07932 642724 BS32 4SQ Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
locking solved (was Re: a bunch of newbie questions)
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 08:30:27PM -0600, David wrote: I think that this is exactly the problem... I dont know if you are on linux, but in my mounts through NIS to an HPUX machine from linux, I use a 'nolock' option that disables attempting to lock over NFS, and I just use dotlocking. I don't know where to point you for documentation on this (perhaps `man mount`?), because I just guessed at what was happening and the options, and it worked. This way I can still use FCNTL on my local machine (spool file), but mutt doesn't try to specially lock my NFS folders. Well, this was a tough one (short answer: nolock worked). The first sign of trouble was that the client is a 2.4.13 machine with a newer version of nfs than the server, which is an old RedHat 6.0 machine running 2.2.5-15. We noticed that statd was not running on the nfs server, so we started it. This caused both mutt and the program in my earlier mail to hang (presumably in an uninterubtible system call, since kill -9 could not kill the process). Perhaps this is why statd wasn't running in the first place. Next, after giving up on trying to get fcntl to work, we modified the local auto.master to use the nolock option, as you suggested. The format of this file differs on the client side from what ypcat gives, but after a number of reboots, we finally got nolock working. Now, mutt doesn't give me any error messages about fcntl (which, I suppose, means it is using dotlocking), and I can now postpone messages. Very cool. Thanks a bunch! Paul
Re: a bunch of newbie questions
Paul -- ...and then Paul Brannan said... % On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:59:31PM -0500, David T-G wrote: % ...and then Paul Brannan said... % % macro index $ ':set delete=ask-yesentersync-mailbox:set delete=noenter' % % % % All I get is a beep, and delete remains set to ask-yes. % % That makes sense. Your macro sets it to ask-yes and then tries to sync % the mailbox, which will generate a y/n prompt. Instead of passing mutt % an expected value, however, you try to next give it a colon, which will % of course cause an error. % % I was thinking about this last night, and it seems that this problem % would easily be solved if mutt had some sort of scripting. Does it have % this capability in 1.3.x? In this case, scripting isn't necessary; if you want to delete and insist on ask-yes, then just feed in an extra y in your macro. Scripting has been discussed much but ain't here yet; perhaps in 1.5 but probably in 1.7 (figuring that there will be a 1.6 before a 2.0). Nicolas has posted a tag-conditional patch that will let you do a tagged operation only when there are tagged messages, which looks to be quite useful in macros. I haven't tried it yet, but it will go into my 1.3.24* build cocktail as soon as I get a chance to put that all together (hi, Cedric!). % % Paul :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21031/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Missing Mail-Followup-To
I have set followup_to in my .muttrc, I have subscribe set (although only with the first part of the list name, i.e. cvs-all not [EMAIL PROTECTED] list-reply works fine, but for some reason mutt .24 isn't setting Mail-Followup-To. Is it only set in original mails, not replies? Hm, it is being set in some places - the Zend engine2 list, for instance, but not cvs-all. Huh? :) Are there some odd rules I'm missing for setting MFT? -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/
Re: Weird e-mail headers
Nah, actually the IMAP server is Cyrus IMAP on Linux. Is the IMAP server running on Windows? Looks like a CR/LF problem to me. -- David Smith Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 (direct) STMicroelectronicsFax: +44 (0)1454 617910 1000 Aztec WestTINA (ST only): (065) 2380 Almondsbury Home: 01454 616963 BRISTOLMobile: 07932 642724 BS32 4SQ Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I have spoken. Jason Rashaad Jackson UNIX Systems Administrator 2032 Samuel T. Dana Building(W) 734.615.1422 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (M) 734.649.6641 msg21033/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Downloading Mutt Source
I was just at ftp.mutt.org and was trying to download the source code. For somereason it would only let me download 59 percent of it. The expected size was 2.4 megs and I would only get 850 kb. I was just wondering if I am doing something wrong or is there another place to get it at? I have tried mirrors but I get the same problem. Thanks in advance.
Re: a bunch of newbie questions
* Nicolas Rachinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 19:27]: | On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 07:24:00PM -0500, David T-G |[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Rene, since starting to use mutt I've never wished delete was set to | ask-yes, but I sure hated mark_old (though I want stuff marked old at | times) :-) | | There is an patch which leaves messages marked old marked old | (even if you unset mark_old). Probably with filesize 0K? Messages marked old stay marked old with me, I don't need no patch for that ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) You have the capacity to learn from mistakes. You'll learn a lot today. msg21038/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yes. this seems like kind of a bad idea to me, and something best left to MUAs - even if they are slow to adopt this, it seems as if enforcing this in an MTA might cause some problems. for instance if i set the 'Reply-To' header to my address, but my mail server, running qmail (mine doesn't really) adds a 'Mail-Followup-To' header with the list address. Of course i don't use mutt (actually i do, but just suppose) so i have no easy way of overriding this header. now when someone using an MUA that honors this header responds, it won't respond to my reply-to address. i realize that this example might be a bit far fetched, but it's just one example. Er, a few points: 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically, you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you add addresses to this list, the header won't get generated. 2) Having a Reply-To and a Mail-Followup-To header at the same time is fine. 3) An MUA that honors the MFT header will use it for *followups* only -- replies should go to the address specified in the Reply-To header. agreed! i guess i was just trying to say that most of us communicate with non-mutt users frequently (i am the only mutt user at my work, in my family, etc. etc.) and so it's to our advantage to try and push for things like this to be made standard. Definately. On lists that are technical and 90% use mutt it is nice. What would be really nice is if MS OE supported these kinds of things. Hah, right...how many years until they will? ;) ttyl, -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: Locking mboxes
So I recompiled: ./configure --with-flock --enable-nfs-fix Don't use flock for locking mail folders accessed via NFS. Fcntl was the right thing to do. I'd guess that some part of your NFS locking is screwed up. For the benefit of the archives, I resolved the issue by disabling both flock and fcntl, and sticking with dotlock. ag
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Josh Huber wrote: Will Yardley writes: Er, a few points: 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically, you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you add addresses to this list, the header won't get generated. true, however if your admin were to add this list to the server (say for internal lists, or common lists) then you would have no way to change this (assuming you do not have root access on the machine). if it's your own machine and your own installation of qmail then no problem. 2) Having a Reply-To and a Mail-Followup-To header at the same time is fine. yes, but as mentioned below, mutt appears to ignore Reply-To even on reply if MFT is set. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i remember happening. 3) An MUA that honors the MFT header will use it for *followups* only -- replies should go to the address specified in the Reply-To header. well mutt's default implementation (at least) appears to follow MFT even with 'reply' or 'group-reply' - am i wrong? this is usually desirable, but has caused me some confusion in the past. Definately. On lists that are technical and 90% use mutt it is nice. What would be really nice is if MS OE supported these kinds of things. Hah, right...how many years until they will? ;) haha well i am not holding my breath -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 21:22]: | Josh Huber wrote: | Will Yardley writes: | | Er, a few points: | | 1) to have qmail generate the Mail-Followup-To header automatically, | you must have a list of mailing lists for it to use, so unless you | add addresses to this list, the header won't get generated. | | true, however if your admin were to add this list to the server (say for | internal lists, or common lists) then you would have no way to change | this (assuming you do not have root access on the machine). if it's | your own machine and your own installation of qmail then no problem. Yeah, and because not every mail _user_ is running it's own qmail server, this is a PITA... | 2) Having a Reply-To and a Mail-Followup-To header at the same time is | fine. | | yes, but as mentioned below, mutt appears to ignore Reply-To even on | reply if MFT is set. maybe i'm wrong, but that's what i remember | happening. Huh? (see below) | 3) An MUA that honors the MFT header will use it for *followups* only | -- replies should go to the address specified in the Reply-To | header. | | well mutt's default implementation (at least) appears to follow MFT even | with 'reply' or 'group-reply' - am i wrong? this is usually desirable, | but has caused me some confusion in the past. I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive that would cause this behaviour... | Definately. On lists that are technical and 90% use mutt it is nice. | What would be really nice is if MS OE supported these kinds of things. | Hah, right...how many years until they will? ;) | | haha well i am not holding my breath Neither are MSOE's developers ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor. msg21042/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Ren? Clerc wrote: I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive that would cause this behaviour... yeah you're correct about 'reply' - my bad. however group-reply i'm pretty sure honors MFT... if i select group-reply, in response to your mail, it is just addressed to the mutt list. one other thing i've noticed is that if you reply to a subscribed list, and someone else has cc'd other names on the email, mutt will add them to the MFT header which (AFAIK) there is no provision for editing directly. probably usually desirable it would be nice if you could at least see what your MFT is going to be set to before sending (and hopefully edit it as well). -- William Yardley System Administrator, Newdream Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc msg21043/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 21:52]: | Ren? Clerc wrote: | | I didn't check for group reply, but when I reply to your mail, it will | be sent to you directly, and when I 'L'ist reply, as I'm doing now, it | is sent to the list. Strange, I can't think of any directive that | would cause this behaviour... | | yeah you're correct about 'reply' - my bad. however group-reply i'm | pretty sure honors MFT... if i select group-reply, in response to your | mail, it is just addressed to the mutt list. Then you probably have set ignore_list_reply_to=yes (where no = default) TFM (where M stands for Muttrc) says: # set ignore_list_reply_to=no # # Name: ignore_list_reply_to # Type: boolean # Default: no # # # Affects the behaviour of the reply function when replying to # messages from mailing lists. When set, if the ``Reply-To:'' field is # set to the same value as the ``To:'' field, Mutt assumes that the # ``Reply-To:'' field was set by the mailing list to automate # responses # to the list, and will ignore this field. To direct a response to the # mailing list when this option is set, use the list-reply # function; group-reply will reply to both the sender and the # list. | one other thing i've noticed is that if you reply to a subscribed list, | and someone else has cc'd other names on the email, mutt will add them | to the MFT header which (AFAIK) there is no provision for editing | directly. probably usually desirable it would be nice if you could | at least see what your MFT is going to be set to before sending (and | hopefully edit it as well). Did you mean the no provision for editing is desirable, or do you mean you would very much like to edit it? I don't want to edit this header: people who are cc'ed probably aren't subscribed to the list, and asked to be cc'ed (this could be my mistake ;). Therefore, I think it makes sense to have them added to the MFT: they want to know how the thread ends. -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in an ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop. -Mother Theresa msg21044/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 22:41]: [...] | besides, i don't think you had reply-to set on your message anyway... | hitting group-reply still honors MFT i'm pretty sure. You don't have to have a Reply-To header in order for group-reply to work, do you? -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Time's fun when you're having flies. -Kermit msg21048/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* Mark Sheppard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 22:11]: | | true, however if your admin were to add this list to the server (say for | | internal lists, or common lists) then you would have no way to change | | this (assuming you do not have root access on the machine). if it's | | your own machine and your own installation of qmail then no problem. | | Yeah, and because not every mail _user_ is running it's own qmail | server, this is a PITA... | | This list of mailing lists is *per user*, not system wide. See the | last answer on http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/appearance.html My mistake, I thought Will described the current situation, which would be, when I think about it, quite ridiculous... When I read that page, some other question comes up: using this qmail method, is it possible to set the MFT to both the list and oneself? If I read between the lines correctly, MFT is set to xxx if you send mail to xxx. How do you add yourself? Not that I care BTW, it just struck me ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) You will receive a legacy which will place you above want. msg21049/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* Samuel Padgett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 22:43]: | Mutt should generate the MFT header based on the people you've | included in the To: and Cc: headers. If you remove the improperly | Cc-ed individual from the Cc: header, Mutt should not put that | person in the MFT header. I completely agree. Is this the current situation? -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. -Dorothy msg21050/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Something else that strikes me: my index 591 r Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 38) mq 592 s Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 74) mq 593 rs Dec 04 Mark Sheppard( 41) tq 594 S Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 50) x mq 595 S Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 42) mq 596 S Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 75) mq 597 rS Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 64) mq 598 S Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 36) tq 599 Dec 04 Samuel Padgett ( 28) mq 600 S Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 35) mq Apart from the thread-tree characters, which are garbled during the cut-and-paste, and the 'from-me' indicator, I don't see an r everytime I replied. But I always use the list-reply function. Can anybody explain this behaviour? Personally, I think it's weir that the r tag is set while not replying to a person but to the list. -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) USER, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean idiot. -Dave Barry, Claw Your Way to the Top msg21051/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
verify pgp-signature outside of mutt?
Hello Mutt-Users First of all: I love mutt. It really rocks. Ok. Lets get down to business. I tried to create a small script which automatically verifies pgp-signed mails from mutt. I have a mailinglist-archive for all of the mailinglists I get. But I want to verify the signatures when the mails enter the archive. Afterwards I am not anymore interested in the signature. It already works with inline-signatures. Simple script, simple output. For the mime-signed mails it doesn't work. :-( Signed mail in file testmail. Using munpack I get signature (part2) and text (part1) munpack -t testmail Now I thought using gpg --verify part2 part1 should verify the signature. But it doesn't work. I always get gpg: Signature made xxx xxx x xx:xx:xx CET using DSA key ID gpg: BAD signature from xxx xx (x) [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I thought maybe munpack changes the content of the mail. I tried to save the mime-parts using mutt. I saved the mail to part1 (deleting part1 and part2 from the first experiment) and the signature to part2. Trying to verify this new set of data I get the same result. BAD signature. Verifing inside mutt works great. So. What did I do wrong. Anything more I have to know about mime-signed-messages? -- cu --== Jerri ==-- Homepage: http://www.jerri.de/ ICQ: 54160208 msg21052/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
Rene -- ...and then Ren? Clerc said... % Something else that strikes me: Whack! % % my index % ... % 593 rs Dec 04 Mark Sheppard( 41) tq % 594 S Dec 04 To Mutt Users( 50) x mq % 595 S Dec 04 Will Yardley ( 42) mq ... % % Apart from the thread-tree characters, which are garbled during the % cut-and-paste, and the 'from-me' indicator, I don't see an r % everytime I replied. But I always use the list-reply function. Did you postpone in the middle of that message? If you postpone, you must be in the same mailbox when you recall and complete in order for the flag to be properly updated. % % Can anybody explain this behaviour? Personally, I think it's weir that % the r tag is set while not replying to a person but to the list. I can try :-) % % -- % René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) % % USER, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean idiot. % -Dave Barry, Claw Your Way to the Top :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21053/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Downloading Mutt Source
Jeff -- ...and then Jeff Brodnax said... % I was just at ftp.mutt.org and was trying to download the source code. For somereason it would only let me download 59 percent of it. The expected size was 2.4 megs and I would only get 850 kb. I was just wondering if I am doing something wrong or is there another place to get it at? I have tried mirrors but I get the same problem. It seems silly, but if you always get to the same place before it craps out it's worth asking. Is your disk full? % Thanks in advance. 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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg21054/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail-followup-to standard....
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-12-2001 23:41]: | Rene -- | | ...and then Ren? Clerc said... (see below) | Did you postpone in the middle of that message? If you postpone, you | must be in the same mailbox when you recall and complete in order for the | flag to be properly updated. That could be it. I'll keep it in mind. | % -- | % René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hmm... you still seem to find three ways to spell my name ;) -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) No woman, no cry. -Bob Marley msg21055/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
binding and slow reaction
Greetings, Can anyone tell me why this: bind pager \e exit Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it actually quits the pager? For example, arrow over the message in the list, hit enter, view message, hit Esc, one-one-thousand, message returns to full-view index. Yet when I press q -- it's instantaneous. What gives? :-) -- -Brian Clark % egrep -i pager= ~/.muttrc set pager=builtin % mutt -v Mutt 1.3.23i (2001-10-09) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.2.19 [using ncurses 5.2] Compile options: -DOMAIN +DEBUG -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK +USE_POP +USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL +USE_GNUTLS +USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +COMPRESSED +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET +HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID +HAVE_GETADDRINFO ISPELL=/usr/bin/ispell SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh MIXMASTER=mixmaster To contact the developers, please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. To report a bug, please use the flea(1) utility.
Quitting Mutt from Browser
Is there a way to exit Mutt directly from the browser? After c tab tab, q just takes me back to the Open mailbox prompt. The help doesn't reveal any other promising commands. I'm running Mutt 1.3.24i and have quit set to yes. Thanks, Sam -- It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar player in the world. If you're not enlightened, forget it. -- George Harrison
Re: binding and slow reaction
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:48:35PM -0500, Brian Clark wrote: Greetings, Can anyone tell me why this: bind pager \e exit Causes there to be a full 1 second delay, after hitting Esc, before it actually quits the pager? Yes I can tell you. Esc is a lead in to many other commands. The delay is to see if anything is going to follow the Esc. Try looking at the commands available while you are in the pager :). Commands you may now find it difficult to use in the future with this binding. -- Regards Cliff
Re: Quitting Mutt from Browser
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:46:39PM -0500, Samuel Padgett wrote: Is there a way to exit Mutt directly from the browser? After c tab tab, q just takes me back to the Open mailbox prompt. The help doesn't reveal any other promising commands. I'm running Mutt 1.3.24i and have quit set to yes. The meaning of q is context dependent. -- Regards Cliff
Re: Quitting Mutt from Browser
The meaning of q is context dependent. Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'. What about CTRL-C...? Seems to work everywhere... KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal Homepage: http://www.skyjammer.com/~pronovic/ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 msg21066/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quitting Mutt from Browser
Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'. Key is not bound. Press '?' for help. Hm. Sam -- It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar player in the world. If you're not enlightened, forget it. -- George Harrison
Re: Quitting Mutt from Browser
Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about CTRL-C...? Seems to work everywhere... If I delete a message in a mailbox, type c ?, then quit with C-c, Mutt doesn't purge the deleted message :-( Sam -- It doesn't matter if you're the greatest guitar player in the world. If you're not enlightened, forget it. -- George Harrison
Re: Quitting Mutt from Browser
On Wed, Dec 5, 2001, Samuel Padgett wrote: Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or you could just remap 'q' to Quit. Or use 'Q'. Key is not bound. Press '?' for help. Hm. Weird. I never touched those in my muttrc, so they are default for me. Qquit save changes to mailbox and quit qexit exit this menu
Weird e-mail headers
Not sure how to phrase this My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4, 2001^M This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that it seems to be screwing up my procmail ruleset. Any idea how to fix this? My mail is fetched via fetchmail from an IMAP server via an SSL connection. Any help offered will be appreciated. Thanks! -- I have spoken. Jason Rashaad Jackson UNIX Systems Administrator 2032 Samuel T. Dana Building(W) 734.615.1422 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (M) 734.649.6641 msg21343/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird e-mail headers
* On Tue Dec 04, Jason Rashaad Jackson wrote: My e-mail headers are being displayed in Mutt like so: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3^M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]^M Subject: daily AMANDA MAIL REPORT FOR December 4, 2001^M If you're using fetchmail to retreive your e-mail, you might have to fiddle with the stripcr parameter. Jesper -- Jesper Holmberg|But how can | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | one be warm | ENST Br, BP 832, 29285 Brest, FRANCE | alone? |
