Re: Why sign posts on mailinglists?
Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 25/01/2002 (09:25) :
Sure, but if you actually cared, you could get my key and try to
verify it. Presumably, if you cared, you'd already have it, since my
key ID is in my sig, and since you can configure gpg/mutt to get keys
from a keyserver automatically. If you had my key, it wouldn't
verify.
No I don't care to have a lot of pgp keys from strangers. But let's stop
this discussion now. There is no point in debating this again.
Preben
--
() Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||' http://www.amnesty.org/
Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
2. I got tired of explaining text-only MUAs to them only to receive comments like, I guess Unix isn't very good if it can't even display different colors and fonts like my PC can. .. .What do you say to comments like that? There's no point, they'll never get it :( As already said, you tell them that they are looking at the wrong problem (and an unexistent one, as any kmail screehshot will show). Text MUAs and Operating system have nothing to do with this. You must answer that displaying fonts and colors in EMAIL (not word processing, that's a different topic) is BAD even on windows, and the worst form of bad manners, because it slows downs unnecessarily ALL internet traffic, AND forces the receiver to waste HIS money and time (even on windows!) to look at somebody else's idea of nice formatting. You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds box ... at the expense of the receiver. Never talk about text muas and operating systems when fighting HTML mail, point out that it's bad EVEN for outlook/windows users. They don't get it, and most times, actually, it's not their fault. Marco
[OT] Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Cameron Simpson wrote: | Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my | knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language. Well, they do both offer a programming language. Oh, you mean not with the bells and whistles I want. True, neither will do loops AFAIK... Well maildrop can do loops. Its got while loops and foreach ones. David. -- All generalizations are false, including this one. -- Mark Twain - David Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] | David Clarke u3353950 Key Fingerprint : 869B 53DD 5E80 E1F0 93F6 9871 0508 0296 5957 F723
Re: message filtering in mutt
Hi, On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 Mike Schiraldi spewed into the ether: I've written patch which brings message filtering to mutt. Once applied, you can press EscF from within mutt to begin the process of setting up mail filters. The patch is short, so i've attached in inline: ROTFL !! That was good :-) pv. -- Prahlad Vaidyanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] The wages of sin are death; but after they're done taking out taxes, it's just a tired feeling: msg23767/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: prevent signature on reply
Hi, On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 Anh Lai spewed into the ether: how do i keep adding my signature when replying? I would like to add it only when composing a new messgae. Having my signature collect on the bottom gets annoying sometimes. Maybe by rebinding the 'r'eply key. Like so (untested) : macro pager r enter-commandunset signature.sh\nreply macro pager m enter-commandset signature='~/.mutt/signature'\nmail pv. -- Prahlad Vaidyanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. -- Looney Tunes, Ali Baba Bunny (1957, Chuck Jones) msg23768/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?
Hi, On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 Roman Neuhauser spewed into the ether: [-- snip --] I'm slowly getting the picture of the classes that would make this happen, and would like to ask you: is there something that you sorely lack in your favorite MDA? What is it? Currently, I use procmail ( I've never used maildrop ), and I wish it's syntax were a bit more like perl's. I find it's current regexp handling kinda cumbersome, and have reverted to piping my mails into perl scripts more than once in the past. Anyway, do post some results, setup a mailing list if you can, and you can count me in ! pv. -- Prahlad Vaidyanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is more to life than increasing its speed. -- Mahatma Gandhi msg23770/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
resending a msg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, and a very merry Friday to you all. I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find it? How is that done? For now I've just bounced the message which I guess should send it again but I'd like to know how this is normally done. Much thanks - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UTh/HpvrrTa6L5oRAs0aAJ0aeO0gekSIRi8xEdc7CQsqHhh7bQCeNdGV 4aSIz+uGqVl3Xn2FuwR+0ZU= =jheB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: char % as quote
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Alas! David T-G spake thus: Funny, but my prompt really used to be back in my early days. Of course, good old Wintendo has always used the '' character at the end of the DOS prompt... [SNIP] Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always used the character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of WinDOS since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been for that length of time. -- Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc - HTML utility http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Re: resending a msg
The default keybinding is ESCe. At least that's what it is on my system, and I don't think I re-bound it. Regards, Ben On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:50:39AM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, and a very merry Friday to you all. I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find it? How is that done? -- Ben Logan: ben at wblogan dot net OpenPGP Key KeyID: A1ADD1F0
Re: resending a msg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Ben Logan blurted The default keybinding is ESCe. At least that's what it is on my system, and I don't think I re-bound it. Yep, thanks Ben. - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UU5EHpvrrTa6L5oRArrkAKCog8GAZ3r+6p52l8DlnIcdlZQeyACgkePd ez4iG1ckeKVqQu1g19gPUrM= =ZkPc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: resending a msg
On Jan 25, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find it? How is that done? FWIW, you could hit '?' to see the keybindings, then '/resend' to search for resend, and you would find resend-message bound to esce. msg23777/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: resending a msg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted FWIW, you could hit '?' to see the keybindings, then '/resend' to search for resend, and you would find resend-message bound to esce. Sure, believe it not I did try that, I must have made a typo and not noticed because I just tried it again and of course it worked. I couldn't find it when I looked through '?' either though: Odd. - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UXROHpvrrTa6L5oRAgtsAJ9/8TOvtQ4ArEwLbBZBvsI0db23jACfYQ+R vtQXvrc6NpbI+qACm4yfc84= =sQye -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: char % as quote
* Roman Neuhauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: dunno about real csh (csh == tcsh on FreeBSD), but % is the default for 0UID in zsh. We could always switch to XML and seperate this metadata from the data itself :) What's the bet that OE or so actually impliments something like this sometime in future. Would certainly beat a bunch of screwed poorly generated HTML. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends. -- H. L. Mencken
Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:04:22PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: On Jan 24, Jeremy Blosser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Jan 25, Roman Neuhauser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language. This can be a plus, or a minus (YMMV), but imagine being able to write filters using a full-featured scripting language! Qmail's .qmail files allow this to be done pretty easily, since you can pipe messages to whatever you want. All you'd need to do is stick something on the end that can read a message as stdin and deliver it, like the maildir/safecat command. I have no idea if Postfix/Exim/etc. offer something similar. I've been told their .forward will do the same; I wasn't sure before how much they allowed. It's been a while. Yep, you can use .forward to forward mail to arbitrary programs as well as other addresses. Here's how I forward all my incoming mail through my Mail::Audit script: $ cat ~/.forward |/home/walt/bin/audit_mail.pl $ Walt msg23780/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: validating traditional signitures
David T-G wrote: *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now it hasn't been a concern. I thought I read about the whole Problems with PGP mails from Outlook more often in the last months. Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros? These macros simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but usually not spend the time on doing so for all messages. Macros are no longer (in 1.3.x where x=20 at least) necessary for traditional verification. I meant the whole old-style handling, not this point in special. The main thing which bothers me: I get very often old-style signed/ encrypted mails. Every time when I open such a mail I have to press Esc-P per default, which is annoing in my eyes. I would like to have this to be done automatically like in the new-style. The common answers about this problem is write a macro. Because a message-hook fails (resp. failed the last time I tried it, there was an endless loop), I have to write lots of macros (for every possible key I can enter this mail). It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp would become a variable (set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes), so that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible workarounds for the other 50%). (The other problems when *writing* old-style PGP mails probably do not exist anymore. I didn't had the time to test the patches announce here in the last weeks.) All you have to do is hit esc-P and it's all there, AIUI, so either build esc-P into your macro, folder-hook an esc-P on all messages when you enter, Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly) intricately. Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's not really good for me. Concerning macros: There are so many ways you can enter a mail that it's hard to detect them all; and (AFAIK) not all work with macros. The only good thing I see is to make a message-hook. But (kill me if it's wrong) it seems not to work with it. *If* it's wrong: Forgive me and tell me the answer. I asked a month ago, but I found no satisfying answer. The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp variable. or use procmail to adjust the message at delivery time so that it looks like MIME. There's no need for another setting and for mutt to have to parse every message in case it *might* be signed in the body. Personally I don't like it to modify my mails (e.g. with procmail). In the worst case the mails become corrupted and no more readable at all. Apart from this I see no reason for modifying, the MUA can handle it. % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a comma ;-) Ok, in *this* case... :-) Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and on-demand verifying (accomplished through various macros). Can you confirm or deny? Indeed I must confirm you. Sorry! The problem is clearly the *checking* not the *verifying* (this is done correctly after the manual checking). Greets, -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ You think Ödipus had a problem -- Adam was Eve's mother.
Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?
* Roman Neuhauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Procmail:
+ lots of prepackaged antispam filters
SpamAssassin rules all.
- config files resemble uuencoded assembler
They're quite easy to understand once you grasp them.
Would you prefer an XML format? :)
- quite resource-hungry (keeps the whole message in memory while
processing it)
Not an issue for me, I don't get large messages, and even if I did I
have about 250MB free.. :)
- reportedly isn't completely safe (can lose your mail)
Maybe if you forget to use a : :)
Maildrop:
- not as popular as Procmail (fewer filter packages)
+ square head is not a prerequisite to understand the configuration
As if anybody doesn't write their own ;)
- quite optimized (larger messages stored in temp files during
processing)
+ should be safer than Procmail
In fact, I found only a *single* spam filter for Maildrop.
http://spamassassin.taint.org/
This used to use Mail::Audit, but various bugs in it have changed that
:)
Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my
knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language.
Neither should, this is beyond their scope; if you want a real language,
run it through an external filter.
This can be a plus, or a minus (YMMV), but imagine being able to write
filters using a full-featured scripting language! This idea really
attracts me, and I started prototyping such an MDA in PHP.
Argh, PHP for important system tasks, keep it away from me! ;)
Using a scripting language has of course a few inherent drawbacks,
but I don't think the speed decrease would be so horrible to mean
anything on a single user box (as opposed to a corporate POP 3 server,
for example). However, I know that I would benefit from the enhanced
capabilities.
Well, how would you include a real programming language in a filter
specification without making the filter fragile and overcomplex?
Actually, with exceptions, powerful OO and lovely clean syntax, I
suspect you could do some interesting things with Ruby...
require 'autolist'
if list = MailingList.match(Mail)
# (badly) strip [list-name] from subject
Mail.subject.strip!(/\[.*\]/)
Mail.deliver('lists/' + list)
end
Mm :)
I'm slowly getting the picture of the classes that would make this
happen, and would like to ask you: is there something that you sorely
lack in your favorite MDA? What is it?
The ability to queue a bunch of messages and then run large scale
comparisons on them for decent dupe handling. Only being able to look
at the current message and ones seen earlier makes this very difficult.
looks at ruby-mda example and tries to stop getting ideas
-- FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE 1:33AM up 4 days, 7:57, 11 users, load
averages: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
Beat you.
--
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/
-
Just about the time when you think you can make ends meet
somebody moves the ends!
Re: validating traditional signitures
Jeremy Blosser wrote: procmail or other MDAs will always be able to do it better, because they're looking at the message in exactly the right way at exactly the right time. With Mutt you're always going to have this effect not stick with the message (so you have to do it every time), you have to apply it when you enter the folder instead of as the message comes in, and the effect is not available in another MUA if you need to use one, even briefly. This is by definition an MDA issue. And the MDAs do it fine, so why not? I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail. But in my eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA. The mail's syntax is correct, so there is no need to modify/correct them. If tomorrow a very-new-style will become standard you wouldn't transform your whole Mailbox into this one, world you? I see no error in argumenting that it's the *MUA*'s job. I see your point, that vith procmail it's way faster. But this doesn't bother me (if the checking is done on demand). P.S.: Sorry again for the wrong subject line. I proofread the body, but I forgot to do it on the subject. :-\ -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ Press any key to continue or any other key to quit...
Re: macros help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Benjamin Smith blurted The following should be a working macro: macro pager \cd exitdelete-thread This is infact contrary to the documented behaviour in the manual which says that a caret not \c indicates the control key. Is this a documentation bug? Must be, I don't know how I managed to get it working wiht ^D but it didn't last long. Your version works great. Thanks guys! - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UYhTHpvrrTa6L5oRAiiRAJ4ra/AZd2Xgg/+j7iycEDrPZWFCUwCcCcr4 vA8U8XePYvGbz9Pqztwpm4Y= =eNUf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: validating traditional signitures
Volker Moell wrote: The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp variable. sure. but according to the many previous discussions of this, there have been problems with getting this to work. so when you send a patch to the mutt-dev list that works, i'm sure they'll be very happy to integrate it into mutt. Personally I don't like it to modify my mails (e.g. with procmail). In the worst case the mails become corrupted and no more readable at all. Apart from this I see no reason for modifying, the MUA can handle it. the procmail recipe seems to work fine, and if you hit esce to edit the raw message, you'll see that the message hasn't been modified, and it's still in 'traditional' form; it just has had the appropriate mime type added to the headers up top. if a message were to get messed up this way, you could almost definitely (and easily) fix it. but if you're really paranoid, have procmail copy the message to another folder before you do anything. obviously this isn't the best solution, but until someone comes up with a way to do this automatically in mutt, it seems to work fine. % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a comma ;-) Ok, in *this* case... :-) write a patch! i am not a programmer; thus i will use the procmail solution until there's a better one. w
Re: macros help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted No, please read it again. What it says is that ^ is an _alternative_ for specifying a control character when used in the _sequence_ portion of a macro. \c is the only documented way to get a control character in the _key_ portion of a macro or keybinding. That makes sense, it's not very clear though as both of us were reading it the same way. On the whole I find the manul /relatively/ simple in most places but that bit is just plain trickey :) - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UZRYHpvrrTa6L5oRAgidAJwPAucwMjw3jT1BeJBo8ChZGxZSlQCeJh/z Zp/tNhgynQb9sXF3Ir9J2Gg= =mx+U -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Deleting Mass emails..
Nick Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 01/24/2002: * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted On Jan 23, Jason Nealis [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: What's the easyiest way to delete message 1-2000? D~m 1-2000 D - delete-pattern ~m 1-2000 - pattern for messages 1-2000 Would that make it D~m * if I wanted to completely empty a mailbox? There is the ~A pattern that matches all messages: D~Aenter will empty a mailbox. (darren) -- Optimization hinders evolution.
Re: DOS prompts (was Re: char % as quote)
Dave -- ...and then Dave Pearson said... % % On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: % % Of course, good old Wintendo has always used the '' character at the end % of the DOS prompt... [SNIP] % % Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always used % the character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of WinDOS % since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been for % that length of time. I beg to differ. The old DOS prompt was just ($g) and then became C ($n$g) -- before anyone had second hard drives. There are a number of variables used (b,d,e,g,l,m,n,p,q,t,v) that can be put together how you wish. These days, the default prompt is $p$g, which gives you the path and the greater symbol. It's been that since at least DOS 6 and I'd bet a Twinkie since DOS 3.3. % % -- % Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams % http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards % Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc - HTML utility % http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode 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! msg23790/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: char % as quote
Alas! Thomas Hurst spake thus: What's the bet that OE or so actually impliments something like this sometime in future. Would certainly beat a bunch of screwed poorly generated HTML. If it's a Good Thing, you can bet Microsoft will have nothing to do with it. -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -- Douglas Adams msg23793/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: validating traditional signitures
Alas! Volker Moell spake thus: I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail. But in my eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA. It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_ your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;) -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'm sorry, our software is perfect. The problem must be you. -- Dogbert msg23794/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: S/MIME patch for Mutt-1.3.26
[followups set to users list only] Hello Mike, On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 2:34:51 PM -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote: indicator.patch changes the behavior of the indicator bar when it is defined as mono indicator reverse (the default). [...] With this patch, the indicator bar, when set to reverse, will have a foreground color set to the background color that the current message would have if it were not selected, and a background color set to the foreground color that the current message would have if it were not selected. This context colored indicator patch seems to have no effect when Mutt (versions 1.2.5 and 1.3.27) is linked with slang (version 1.4.4). Tested on 2 different terminals (directly on Linux console and from Cygwin's telnet), the indicator is simply black ink on white paper as without the patch. I know nothing about Ncurses, not even how to see it's version, but tried to link with it: The indicator seems to react well. It takes the reversed colors the current index line should be. But, for an unrelated to your patch reason, the color scheme of all the screen is messed up: in foreground what should be white appears black, red appears cyan, yellow is green, and blue is magenta... Green, magenta, cyan and white appear correctly. Background colors are also messed up, but not in the same way. And sometimes changing an item color (let's say quoted4) will also change in some way the color of another item (say status). What have they put in my glass? Quick come back to Slang! And noted somewhere to not try again drugs too strong for me. ;-) Someone knows how to make indicator.patch work with Slang? Bye!Alain.
Problem with locale?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all I'm having a problem with an FAQ I keep getting ? and char codes etc instead of certain charicters. I've checked my LC_CTYPE and it's 'en_US' but er.. I'm not sure what to so with it. The FAQ says to set it to the correct value but what's that, and how do I do it? I'm a tad confused. Thanks very much - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UcE3HpvrrTa6L5oRAqT7AKCwz6B2tHFpkfL2MosWMDvlcbecYACeKAo5 e2iQTG2ejfTJr9UdO5mV+3A= =JcGR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Postfix messed up?
I'm running LM 8.1 and have been setting up Mutt (1.3.25i). Everything was going pretty good until I started playing around with my server settings. For awhile, I couldn't send/receive any mail even with Kmail or sylpheed. I removed Postfix and Mutt and re-installed them. I can now send/receive mail with Kmail Sylpheed, but not Mutt, which leads me to believe it has something to do with Postfix. I can, however, receive mail with Mutt. I tried installing sendmail but it conflicts with Postfix and the install failed. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. TIA -- Regards, Cordman
Re: Postfix messed up?
Ron Secord wrote: I removed Postfix and Mutt and re-installed them. I can now send/receive mail with Kmail Sylpheed, but not Mutt, which leads me to believe it has something to do with Postfix. I can, however, receive mail with Mutt. I tried installing sendmail but it conflicts with Postfix and the install failed. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. what does your postconf -n output look like? what happens in your logs if you do: /usr/sbin/sendmail -t From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test blah ^D is there anything in your logs after you try to send mail from mutt? does sending a message appear to succeed? kmail and sylpheed might be using SMTP to send mail, whereas mutt doesn't speak SMTP and it's using the sendmail command. post some logs. w
Re: S/MIME patch for Mutt-1.3.26
This context colored indicator patch seems to have no effect when Mutt (versions 1.2.5 and 1.3.27) is linked with slang (version 1.4.4). Yow! I'll take a look and post my findings. -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
On 25/01/02, from the brain of Marco tumbled: You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds box ... at the expense of the receiver. Never talk about text muas and operating systems when fighting HTML mail, point out that it's bad EVEN for outlook/windows users. They don't get it, and most times, actually, it's not their fault. Marco I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email with mutt now, I appreciate text email. But something I don't understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone. Isn't HTML just text? The tags are evaluated and formatted at the client. So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be? Or is it the links and scripts that are often included? I'd like to be more informed as I operate in an office full of windows users who like to format everything in sight. -- Michael Montagne [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boora.com
Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
On Jan 25, Michael Montagne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Isn't HTML just text? The tags are evaluated and formatted at the client. So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be? Yes. Just text doesn't mean much; text or binary, it's all 1's and 0's in the end. The important thing is the amount of 1's and 0's going around. HTML versions of files are, in my experience, about 3x the size of the text version. This would be less of an issue if that was to actually add any value, but in the case of most people it's just used to send text without any formatting anyway, or text formatted in ways they think is pretty but that makes it unreadable. msg23802/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Michael Montagne blurted I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email with mutt now, I appreciate text email. But something I don't understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone. Isn't HTML just text? The tags are evaluated and formatted at the Sure is. client. So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be? That would be the way I understand it. One or two don't hurt but once those few extra bytes are multiplied thousands of even millions of times it's a bigger deal. - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UdwRHpvrrTa6L5oRAtTGAKCvWP8ohHbeA3A88Io6p3R6XvEzZgCeIHcB cBCrY82wrUFxoAOaf/Ejlog= =UNBY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
Michael -- ...and then Michael Montagne said... % % On 25/01/02, from the brain of Marco tumbled: % You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds % box ... at the expense of the receiver. ... % % I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email % with mutt now, I appreciate text email. But something I don't Good for you :-) % understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone. % Isn't HTML just text? The tags are evaluated and formatted at the % client. So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be? % Or is it the links and scripts that are often included? If we assume that content is size x, then we can also assume that any formatting thereof must increase the message size from x to x+n. Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for generated HTML to have n much greater than x. Hence the size argument; every letter takes twice (thrice? more?) as much bandwidth, processing, and disk space when formatted in HTML versus plain ASCII. Off-topic meandering: I think it would be lovely to automatically compress all email before sending and have it opened on the other end, but that not only gets into more MIME types (I think it could be done pretty easily but haven't played with it, and certainly haven't thought about the troubles of, say, searching within a compressed mail body) but also costs processing power to package up and then open up the item. For those on a dialup link, though, it could be a real blessing. % I'd like to be more informed as I operate in an office full of windows % users who like to format everything in sight. Best of luck! % % -- % Michael Montagne % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.boora.com :-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! msg23804/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Postfix messed up?
On Wednesday 31 December 1969 06:59 pm, you wrote: what does your postconf -n output look like? what happens in your logs if you do: I tried the postconf -n and got: bash: postconf: command not found /usr/sbin/sendmail -t From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test blah ^D I tried that and it worked. (I recieved the email) echo test | sendmail recipient tail -f /var/log/mail* Got: bash: sendmai: command not found post some logs. Definitely. I found an errors log in /var/log/mail and it had just one line: Jan 24 11:02:24 prexar procmail(3433): Suspicious rcfile /home/ron/.procmail The info log was quite lengthy so I'll attach it. Hopefully, this ML accepts attachments:) There's also9 one other thing that I will post in another mesage as this one is getting pretty long. Thanks again -- Regards, Cordman Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/master[1875]: daemon started Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: AD230D049: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: AD230D049: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: AD230D049: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=278, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BA5B8D05E: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BA5B8D05E: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BA5B8D05E: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=278, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BB29DD063: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BB29DD063: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BB29DD063: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=278, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BBD3BD065: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BBD3BD065: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BBD3BD065: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=283, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BC46ED066: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BC46ED066: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BC46ED066: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=278, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BCD68D067: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BCD68D067: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BCD68D067: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=278, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BE866D068: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BE866D068: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BE866D068: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=270, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BF0E6D069: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BF0E6D069: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BFBC0D06A: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BF0E6D069: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=409, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BFBC0D06A: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BFBC0D06A: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=403, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: C0748D06B: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: C0748D06B: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: CB7A2D06C: uid=501 from=ron Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: C0748D06B: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=557, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: CB7A2D06C: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: CB7A2D06C: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=416, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/local[1929]: BE866D068: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=local, delay=48911, status=bounced (unknown user: cordman) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: 26A7BD06D: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: 26A7BD06D: from=, size=1761, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1915]: BF0E6D069: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=47419, status=deferred (Name service error for ime.net: Host not found, try again) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1942]: BFBC0D06A: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=30357, status=deferred (Name service error for ime.net: Host not found, try again) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: 357D0D070: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: 357D0D070: from=, size=2111, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1915]: C0748D06B: to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=none, delay=29997, status=deferred (Name service error
Re: recognizing traditional PGP
David T-G wrote: Hokay. As below, I just wanted to make sure of what we were discussing. I've changed the subject line to help :-) Good, thanks! You realize what you're asking, right? With PGP/MIME, mutt simply has to look at the headers to see what it must do, and that's already done, and it's pretty resistant to problems. With inline signing, mutt now has to look at the body for these magic strings [...] Yes, I'm aware of those potential problems. Now, we clearly see that it's not impossible; that's what esc-P does for us. It could cause problems, though, if it were the default behavior, and it would mean reading every mail body for parsing as well. [Is that more expensive in an mbox file? I dunno; I'm not a programmer.] It's an additional checking, so it *is* more expensive. *How* expensive it is, I don't know. (See below.) Someday :-) Yeah, this seems to be the most essential word in out thread. :-) % mail). It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp % would become a variable (set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes), so % that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of % handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible % workarounds for the other 50%). Hmmm... With this I mean, you can - press enter in the index - press down, up, pgup, pgdown in the pager - press space at the end of a message - delete (in various ways) a mail - jump to a mail - ... to view a mail. Do you really want do set a macro for each of these (and surely more!) keybindings? Not really, at least not me. So a message-hook seems to be the only senseful place to implement a check-traditional on demand. With macros it's only a nice workaround. IMHO. Understood. I think that all is well but I'm still working on my patch cocktail for .27 and won't have a use for force_traditional anyway (since I don't use 8-bit chars; I'm a boring American). BTW: Thanks a lot for your work! :-) I wasn't really aware of the fact that all of the traditional PGP stuff is highly in employment. I started using mutt together with making my first PGP experience about 4 months ago. Somehow I rather thought that no one of the developer is interested in implementing this strongly deprecated old-style -- beside of the users wish. Now I see that this was rank nonsense. I beg for pardon, for my postings sound assumedly rude. % Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly) % intricately. You've lost me here. Is it just me, or did you not complete your thought? It's ok for a single mail or two. But I receive a lot of them. And pressing Esc-P (or so) everytime to be able to read it (most of them are encryptet!), *is* circumstantial. % Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's % not really good for me. [...] That's interesting... It took longer by the clock to *not* check a thousand messages for traditional pgp :-) Maybe there were no or not many traditional style mail in it? I tested it in a folder with about 2100 mails. Entering the folder (with no folder-hooks) in about 2 seconds, but checking traditional with macro index F8 \ tag-pattern.entertag-prefixcheck-traditional-pgptag-prefixtag-message \ check-traditional-pgp for complete folder (sorry for the long line) takes about 9 seconds. And there are only about 650 old-style signed and/or encrypted mails in it. But normaly there is no need to check the complete folder at once. A checking on demand (i.e. only if a mail is accessed) would suffice. But maybe exactly here is the problem... in detecting the demand. I can't answer your latter point, since I haven't seen any examples of failure, but I agree that the current limitations mean lots of very similar macros. It's all we have for now, though. It's not only the fact that the macros all are similar. The other thing is to cover all possibilities. If someone implements a new way in entering a mail it doesn't work here again. Again a pro for on demand. % The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp % variable. Fair enough; to each his own. I don't think I'd mind having such a variable, either, since I could leave it off. You really want everyone interested in handling with the old PGP style write lots of macros and finally still forgetting some? IMHO all those people want old-style work everytime, not just for some special keybindings (and not for some other). But if you say it's hard to implement the on demand (I really don't have any clue about the mutt sources and PGP at all), macros are way better than nothing. (Up to now I just thought it was your [or the author's] intention only to support macros.) Good night (for the Europeans), happy evening (for you Americans), and happy slaying (for Buffy!) ;-) -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ The C Programming Language -- A
Re: validating traditional signitures
Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail. But in my eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA. It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_ your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;) Sure. D like in delivery. But why *modifying* if there is no failure in the mail syntax and if the user agent is able to handle this correct formatted mail (even when it's old-fashioned)? -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ If you cannot convince them, confuse them. -- Harry S. Truman
Re: Postfix messed up?
This is a followup to my other message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is messed up. It should be [EMAIL PROTECTED] shouldn't it? I'm getting that with every message I send with Mutt. If I send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it will not go thru, but if I sent one to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will get it. (Both prexar.com and ime.net are the same ISP) Received: from prexar.com ([142.167.38.33]) by mta1.prexar.com (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license a8541e342b4da52589eebe0522426823) with ESMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:31:35 -0500 Received: by prexar.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2EA3C1A071; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:32:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:32:13 -0500 From: Ron Secord [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Cordman
Re: Postfix messed up?
Ron Secord wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 1969 06:59 pm, you wrote: what does your postconf -n output look like? what happens in your logs if you do: I tried the postconf -n and got: bash: postconf: command not found it's probably in /usr/sbin - which is most likely not in your path unless you're root. try /usr/sbin/postconf -n or try running it as root. I tried that and it worked. (I recieved the email) echo test | sendmail recipient tail -f /var/log/mail* Got: bash: sendmai: command not found echo test | /usr/bin/sendmail recipient tail -f /var/log/mail* post some logs. Definitely. I found an errors log in /var/log/mail and it had just one line: Jan 24 11:02:24 prexar procmail(3433): Suspicious rcfile /home/ron/.procmail procmail is default LDA with mandrake i think. it's very picky about permissions. change the permissions on your .procmailrc and all your other procmail files so that they're not world readable. The info log was quite lengthy so I'll attach it. Hopefully, this ML accepts attachments:) it's better to post specific log segments. ie try to send a message in mutt and see if anything's logged; then grep for a particular queue ID relating to that message. There's also9 one other thing that I will post in another mesage as this one is getting pretty long. Thanks again do you have sendmail set to anything in your .muttrc? the default is /usr/sbin/sendmail -oem -oi that should work ok with postfix - works ok on my machine anyway. grep sendmail .muttrc (or whatever your mutt config file is) if it's not there, what happens when you do: echo test | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oem -oi recipient ? are there any errors to the command line? what are the logs that ONE command generates in your mail logs? w
\223 and \224
Hello, This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the mailing list archives, so here goes: Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the original file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously). Maybe a procmail recipe that fixes it with sed? Any thoughts? I'm using Mutt 1.3.25 on Debian sid with LANG=en_US and /etc/locales.gen set to en_US ISO-8859-1. Thanks, Chris -- Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689 Computer / Network Manager email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page: University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle
Re: \223 and \224
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Christopher S. Swingley blurted Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the original file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously). That looks exactly like what I've been getting. Do you also get '?' chars coming up unexpectedly? - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8UeYJHpvrrTa6L5oRAoetAJ994Y+EKkPGYZ7fRzijMVn7Pi/ZeACeO7kn Wrj8ATWH8ByUf2rPIbuM6yU= =pJN2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Postfix messed up?
On Jan 25, Ron Secord [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: echo test | sendmail recipient tail -f /var/log/mail* Got: bash: sendmai: command not found ^^^ If that's a paste, you typoed the name. msg23812/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: \223 and \224
Quoting Nick Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the original file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously). That looks exactly like what I've been getting. Do you also get '?' chars coming up unexpectedly? That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where I've seen that. It's certainly not as common as the \222 - \224 issue. It looks like sed won't do the trick because it doesn't understand octal (\222 - \224) or hexidecimal (\x92 - \x93) escapes. Perl will, but that's an awful lot of overhead. I was also mistaken in my description of the characters -- 0x91 is `, 0x92 is ', 0x93 is ``, and 0x94 is ''. See: http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html#CP1252 for details on Microsoft's ``extension'' of ISO-8859-1, properly called CP1252, but often advertised as iso-8859-1 in email and HTML pages generated by Microsoft software. Chris -- Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689 Computer / Network Manager email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page: University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle
Re: \223 and \224
On Jan 25, Christopher S. Swingley [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where I've seen that. It's certainly not as common as the \222 - \224 issue. It looks like sed won't do the trick because it doesn't understand octal (\222 - \224) or hexidecimal (\x92 - \x93) escapes. Perl will, but that's an awful lot of overhead. super-sed supports extended syntax, including PCREs: http://spazioweb.inwind.it/seders/ssed/ msg23814/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: \223 and \224
Chris -- ...and then Christopher S. Swingley said... % % This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the % mailing list archives, so here goes: It is there; I remember it. % % Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? % The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 % (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the original % file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously). % % Maybe a procmail recipe that fixes it with sed? Any thoughts? I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut! headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted. Check for messages with 8859 and 1252 in the body. % % I'm using Mutt 1.3.25 on Debian sid with LANG=en_US and /etc/locales.gen % set to en_US ISO-8859-1. % % Thanks, HTH HAND % % Chris % -- % Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689 % Computer / Network Manager email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page: % University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle :-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! msg23815/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: \223 and \224
I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut! headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted. Check for messages with 8859 and 1252 in the body. That was the trick (8859 in mutt-users). Looks like the solution is: set display_filter=demoroniser It's a Perl script available at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/ Thanks. Chris -- Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689 Computer / Network Manager email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page: University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle
Re: validating traditional signitures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly: the procmail recipe seems to work fine Except it doesn't. if the mail has an attachment. It no work good. :) I have a lot of Pine-using friends, and this is what happens when they send me an encrypted mail with attachments (which happens often enough to be bothersome). And, while Esc-P makes this situation a bit better to deal with, I get a LOT of encrypted and/or signed mail. I receive prolly 400-600 messages a day, of which I would estimate about 20% to 30% are signed or encrypted. Having to hit esc-P for every single one of them (we're talking between 80-180 messages a day, in the extremes) gets extremely tedious. Forgetting to do so (which happens often) when I'm replying to, say, an old-style signed message means I then also have to weed out a lot of crap from the reply that I (IMO) shouldn't need to. Mutt should do this for me, by automatically recognizing that the message is a PGP-somethingorother message. I would make the argument that computers are very good at doing repetetive, tedious tasks. People aren't, and typically don't enjoy them. We use computers to make our lives easier, to remove as many of the repetetive, tedious tasks as possible. This is a perfect example of when that should be done, IMO. While yes, it is possible to make mutt do this by implementing a macro, it seems to me that a sufficiently significant amount of time and bandwidth has been wasted by people on this list REPEATEDLY explaining how to do this, and REPEATEDLY arguing about whether mutt really ought to do this automatically (or more accurately, to provide the option to do so), that it seems the answer to the latter question should be obvious... and if you hit esce to edit the raw message, you'll see that the message hasn't been modified, and it's still in 'traditional' form; it just has had the appropriate mime type added to the headers up top. That's still modifying the message... the headers are part of the message. I'm against MTA/MDA munging of mail in all its forms, when not absolutely necessary (i.e. when passing messages between incompatible mail systems). The MDA shouldn't NEED to know about PGP or any other user application; its job is to DELIVER mail, not muck with it. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Uf3JdjdlQoHP510RAorIAKCe2lp/vPSum3TPuBqW8qO8hRtVDACfSXuy h9tOfUa2BfSn/Qf6K0v15Nc= =pI+e -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: I hate to ask this....
Kelly -- ...and then Kelly Scroggins said... % % I hate to ask this. It must be right under my % nose. Probably so. % % But, I've looked in the headers of this lists % messages, I've looked on the web site too, but I % can't find anything that tells me how to % unsubscribe. You mean you didn't save your welcome message when you signed up? % % Would someone please tell me? Nope. You're stuck here. It's like the mafia; once you're in, you can never get out. Your only hope is to turn off your computer, start walking, and never look back. If you were really desperate, you could try sending a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see what happens. % % Thanks, % kelly 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! msg23821/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:09:09PM -0800 I heard the voice of Michael Montagne, and lo! it spake thus: Isn't HTML just text? The tags are evaluated and formatted at the client. So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be? Or is it the links and scripts that are often included? Yes. I'm not even going to INCLUDE it here. http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/misc/msghtml This came into a tech support alias I watch. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Specializing in FreeBSD |http://www.over-yonder.net/ The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet
Re: [OT] html email
I suppose it's equally valid for them to say, I, the sender, should be able to control how a message is presented to you. No, that's the whole point, because with email the (time, money) extra expense associated with downloading useless html formatting is paid by the receiver, not the sender. Even if both receiver and sender use GUI mua's, and regardless of the OS. Marco -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research -- The whole world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes. -- George Gobel
Maildir differences
I have switched over to Maildir format and I have noticed a few things that don't seem quite right... When I had mbox format set up, I had spool directories that procmail dumped mail to. I would read it, and then I would us an mbox-hook to move the read mail to a final destination. e.g. mailboxes =mutt-spool mbox-hook mutt-spool =mutt This doesn't work anymore. The mail goes to the mutt-spool folder, but the mbox-hook doesn't ask to move mail to the mutt folder like it used to. Is this supposed to use the mutt folder as the procmail drop point AND the final resting place for mail? That's fine if it is supposed to work that way, I just need to know if that is the case. Another thing I've noticed is my sent-mail doesn't work anymore as a Maildir. I had to keep it as an mbox format to get it to work. Is this right? And finally, related to the spool file problem above, my /var/spool/mail/username does not ask to move to my mbox location anymore, even if I leave ~/Mail/inbox as an mbox format. What's going on? Thanks -- David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg23824/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Maildir differences
On Jan 25, David Rock [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: I have switched over to Maildir format and I have noticed a few things that don't seem quite right... When I had mbox format set up, I had spool directories that procmail dumped mail to. I would read it, and then I would us an mbox-hook to move the read mail to a final destination. e.g. mailboxes =mutt-spool mbox-hook mutt-spool =mutt That generally would need to be mbox-hook =mutt-spool =mutt. The old one probably worked coincidentally, and now it doesn't because you've changed things. This doesn't work anymore. The mail goes to the mutt-spool folder, but the mbox-hook doesn't ask to move mail to the mutt folder like it used to. Is this supposed to use the mutt folder as the procmail drop point AND the final resting place for mail? That's fine if it is supposed to work that way, I just need to know if that is the case. It's supposed to work the way you tell it to, provided you tell it correctly. Maildirs don't have any significant special exceptions in the regular build. Another thing I've noticed is my sent-mail doesn't work anymore as a Maildir. I had to keep it as an mbox format to get it to work. Is this right? No. Something else about your config must be messed up. If your $record points to a mailbox that is a Maildir, it should write to it correctly as a Maildir. And finally, related to the spool file problem above, my /var/spool/mail/username does not ask to move to my mbox location anymore, even if I leave ~/Mail/inbox as an mbox format. What's going on? Probably more to do with mismatched mbox-hooks or something. Hard to say without seeing more of your config. msg23825/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DOS prompts (was Re: char % as quote)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:38:57PM -0500, David T-G wrote: Dave -- % Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always % used the character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of % WinDOS since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been % for that length of time. I beg to differ. The old DOS prompt was just ($g) and then became C ($n$g) -- before anyone had second hard drives. There are a number of variables used (b,d,e,g,l,m,n,p,q,t,v) that can be put together how you wish. That's agreeing with me, not differing with me. I said used, I didn't say was only. We're on about the terminating character here. These days, the default prompt is $p$g, which gives you the path and the greater symbol. It's been that since at least DOS 6 and I'd bet a Twinkie since DOS 3.3. I can probably remember as far back as about DOS 3.1 and the default prompt of the default shell was $p$g. -- Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc - HTML utility http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
