Re: Move deleted messages to trash
--DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! David T-G spake thus: % I haven't tested it with these macros, but when I save a message to the % same folder it's in, it deletes the original message and appends the % message to the mailbox (so it immediately appears in the index). Nothi= ng % goofy about it. =20 How do you delete a message from the trash folder if you have those macros bound without resorting to something wonky like saving to /dev/null? You're supposed to make a wonky folder-hook that deletes messages while in the trash, but saves them to the trash folder from other folders. ;) --=20 Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'm always amazed to hear of air crash victims so badly mutilated that they have to be identified by their dental records. What I can't understand is, if they don't know who you are, how do they know who your dentist is? -- Paul Merton --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8WlohPTh2iSBKeccRAhrPAJ9E87FPX+6Gc/BrMsVe/OBUgy6zywCcDckM ynQjyr+mt09P1TPEBzeRNII= =nF+h -END PGP SIGNATURE- --DocE+STaALJfprDB--
Re: Move deleted messages to trash
Rob -- ...and then Feztaa said... % % Alas! David T-G spake thus: % % I haven't tested it with these macros, but when I save a message to the % % same folder it's in, it deletes the original message and appends the % % message to the mailbox (so it immediately appears in the index). Nothing % % goofy about it. % % How do you delete a message from the trash folder if you have those macros % bound without resorting to something wonky like saving to /dev/null? % % You're supposed to make a wonky folder-hook that deletes messages while % in the trash, but saves them to the trash folder from other folders. ;) No, no, I know that; I was explaining why things got goofy. It would be much cleaner to use Cedric's trash_folder patch anyway :-) % % -- % Rob 'Feztaa' Park % [EMAIL PROTECTED] :-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! msg24071/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Exporting a message?
On Jan 31, Michael Elkins [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Philip Mak wrote: I don't suppose there's a command like pipe-message, except that it filters headers (the header filtering code is already available in the pager, after all)? Or would I have to write an external header filtering program and then do something like: macro index E pipe-message perl filter_header.pl which isn't exactly the optimal solution, since an external program does not have ready access to my configuration file my_hdr settings, but would work I suppose. Yes, there is a pipe-message. If you set $pipe_decode, it will weed out the headers and the message you get will look just like it does in the pager, which should be suitable for printing. ...and there is also the corresponding $print_decode for use with $print_cmd. msg24072/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Viewing tared attachments
Hy, sorry for the OT question, but it depens on my lazyness and the daily usability of mutt. Periodical i get an automatic generated mail with an attachment with tar-gz'ed ascii files, logs and configs. With the entry in the mailcap configuration for application/x-gzip i use zless to view them directly from mutt. But this is not very usable, because the files are all viewed in one stream so i saved, unpacked and viewed them individual. My workaround now is, to attach every file individual to the mail, to select and view it seperatly in mutt. Can somebody give me a hint, if there is a mailcap entry, wich allows to browse the attached tar.gz file and save or view the included files seperatly. Regards Christoph
Re: s/mime questions
presumably the private key should be 0600, and maybe the directory 0700? The directory should be 0700 -- did you use the script's init command, or make the directories yourself? If you used init and it's not 0700, let me know. Just to be safe, i just sent Thomas a patch which sets umask 077 for the entire script. -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
mutt and NFS
Is there some weirdness that may happen with mutt run from my home dir which is NFS mounted? Not sure what the correlation would be, but I find that after I have been in a mailbox, once in another, sometimes mutt will tell me there is new mail in tha tmailbox, but going there, there is no new mail. It happens a few times and then seems to stop. Thanks. -Ken
Re: s/mime questions
Mike Schiraldi wrote: presumably the private key should be 0600, and maybe the directory 0700? The directory should be 0700 -- did you use the script's init command, or make the directories yourself? If you used init and it's not 0700, let me know. yeah i created the directory by hand. should the file have been created as 0644 tho? i changed it to 0600. Just to be safe, i just sent Thomas a patch which sets umask 077 for the entire script. probably a good idea just to be safe... i am trying to send myself some test messages with a free key from thawte, and i can (apparently) decrypt them, but there's no text in the decrypted messages... any ideas? no luck on signing either, but i'm sure that one is probably my fault. w
Folder Hook malfunction
I recently upgraded to 1.3.27i. To do so I found a .deb package compiled at http://friry.nom.fr/gnu/mutt/index.html . That had all the patches in in. I was mainly interested in the trash patch. I realize that it comes with no guarantees but No any folder hook with an explicit folder does not fire. Here is an example of what does not work. folder-hook spam push T'.*'enterdenter It seems that when I explicitly mention a folder, it does not run. This works: folder-hook . push T'.*'enterdenter Did something happen to make my syntax incorrect? I also tried folder-hook =spam push T'.*'enterdenter and folder-hook =spam$ push T'.*'enterdenter -- Michael Montagne [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boora.com
[feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
Hello, First thank for your work, mutt is great. sometimes, I send some mails with bcc field filled, but in the sent mailbox the recipients are not showed, it would be usefull (for the sender) to know the mail have been sent. In my sent mailbox, it appears that the mail has been sent to undisclosed-recipients: ;. Thanks for reading me. Best regards. William. -- I WILL NOT CONDUCT MY OWN FIRE DRILLS I WILL NOT CONDUCT MY OWN FIRE DRILLS I WILL NOT CONDUCT MY OWN FIRE DRILLS I WILL NOT CONDUCT MY OWN FIRE DRILLS Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 8F19
Re: s/mime questions
Mike Schiraldi wrote: [...] Just a question: Is it really necessary to attach at each message the smime.p7s file (your signature or so)? It has always about the 10th size of your underlying posting, so it increases the size of your posting way much. What is it for at all? Why is this (I think) signature so large? -volker -- http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ Those who can't write, write manuals.
Re: [feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
William Wu wrote: sometimes, I send some mails with bcc field filled, but in the sent mailbox the recipients are not showed, that's why it's called Bcc (blind carbon copy) it would be usefull (for the sender) to know the mail have been sent. In my sent mailbox, it appears that the mail has been sent to undisclosed-recipients: ;. this is added by your MTA since there's no To field most people put their own address in the 'To' field when sending messages to multiple recipients via BCC. if you're using bcc, the POINT is that people can't see who the message was sent to... so put a generic 'To' header if you want to bcc. w
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 01, Volker Moell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Mike Schiraldi wrote: [...] Just a question: Is it really necessary to attach at each message the smime.p7s file (your signature or so)? It has always about the 10th size of your underlying posting, so it increases the size of your posting way much. What is it for at all? Why is this (I think) signature so large? Mike and I were discussing this in private mail earlier this week... I'm sure he'll have his own things to add, but after talking with him this is my take on it: The sigs are that big because they all include his public key. S/MIME does not use keyservers like OpenPGP does. It also does not have a web of trust concept, instead relying on central CAs. They consider this an advantage, since it means you can always verify a message regardless of your current network connection status, etc... all that you need to verify the message is containted in the message itself and your local list of trusted CA certs. This means that people that don't understand how public key encryption works can still use it without really having to know anything at all. There are of course a few disadvantages to these methods... first, the bandwidth issue you raise (I believe it's worth it to sign all my mails, but I have to question if it's still worth it when the sig is 3k instead of 0.2k; or rather, question if that extra bulk is giving me anything I want over what the 0.2k gives me). There are also a plethora of issues regarding the use of a CA at all vs. manually verifying your keys/using a tighter web of trust, but those are well beyond the scope of this list, probably. I think this kind of opportunistic encryption has its place in at least affecting some useful social engineering, but I don't like how all or none it is currently. To me the ideal solution to the bandwidth issue would be a system that allowed you to send the whole key with the sig to certain people, and let people request it from key servers in other cases (mailing lists). Unfortunately nothing around really does this in the ideal way (you can do it with OpenPGP implementations, but OpenPGP still has a lot of usability issues that won't make it quite reach the opportunistic encryption bar). msg24081/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
Ken Weingold muttered: Is there some weirdness that may happen with mutt run from my home dir which is NFS mounted? Since NFS's locking mechanism is broken, I would recommend using Maildir. HTH, Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: [feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
On 2002.02.01, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Wu wrote: sometimes, I send some mails with bcc field filled, but in the sent mailbox the recipients are not showed, that's why it's called Bcc (blind carbon copy) This sort of dodges one solution, though, which is to retain the bcc: header on locally-filed copies (while leaving it out of those pumped into the MTA). I actually prefer this approach, having gotten used to it on some other mailer I used to use. Mutt can do it, too: set write_bcc in your .muttrc. But note that this makes mutt send the Bcc: header to your MTA, too. If your MTA filters it out, that's ok, but if it does not, you might want to wrap your MTA in a script or just avoid this setting. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: [feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
William -- ...and then William Wu said... % % Hello, Hello! % % First thank for your work, mutt is great. I think so, too! % % sometimes, I send some mails with bcc field filled, but in the sent % mailbox the recipients are not showed, it would be usefull (for the % sender) to know the mail have been sent. % In my sent mailbox, it appears that the mail has been sent to % undisclosed-recipients: ;. This is the interesting part. What do you mean by your sent mailbox? Your saved copy should have all of your headers, including your bcc: list. Now, if you bcc yourself and get a copy, you won't see the bcc: list just like any other recipient. % % Thanks for reading me. % Best regards. HTH HAND % % William. % -- % I WILL NOT CONDUCT MY OWN FIRE DRILLS That was a good one :-) :-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! msg24084/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
David Champion wrote: This sort of dodges one solution, though, which is to retain the bcc: header on locally-filed copies (while leaving it out of those pumped into the MTA). I actually prefer this approach, having gotten used to it on some other mailer I used to use. Mutt can do it, too: set write_bcc in your .muttrc. oh - i thought the question was regarding the recipient. i'm pretty sure wrote_bcc is default... i've always seen bcc reipients in MY copy. i think he meant that the copy he _receives_ has 'undisclosed_recipients' in the header, which means his MTA has rewritten it (correctly). w
Re: [feature requests] bcc and sent mailbox
David Champion wrote: Mutt can do it, too: set write_bcc in your .muttrc. But note that this makes mutt send the Bcc: header to your MTA, too. If your MTA filters it out, that's ok, but if it does not, you might want to wrap your MTA in a script or just avoid this setting. formail (from the procmail distro) would be a good tool for stripping out the bcc if your MTA does not. You could create a script like such: #!/bin/sh cat - | formail -I bcc | /usr/sbin/sendmail $* and specify this script instead of /usr/sbin/sendmail in your $sendmail variable.
Re: mutt and NFS
Michael Tatge wrote: Ken Weingold muttered: Is there some weirdness that may happen with mutt run from my home dir which is NFS mounted? Since NFS's locking mechanism is broken, I would recommend using Maildir. i think he meant that mutt itself is mounted on the NFS share. i wouldn't do this unless i had to, and i can imagine it might cause some problems, but shouldn't be a big deal if you don't have root access on the machine, maybe the admin could make you a directory on a local disc you could install mutt into? is the filer something fairly robust like a netapp? in that case i'd feel a bit less weird about it... we have customers who compile and run stuff with few problems on our netapp (from linux client machines)... w
Re: coloring ~N by way of external file query?
* Brian Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Brian Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Feb 01. 2002 00:33]:
$ cat dynacolor.sh
#!/bin/sh
awk '{printf(color index yellow default \~f %s ~N\\n, $1);}' addrs.txt
By the way, if anyone else wants to do this and the lines in addrs.txt
have spaces, use $0 rather than $1.
awk '{printf(color index yellow default \~f \\\%s\\\ ~N\\n, $0);}' addrs.txt
Thank, David. Neat trick.
Indeed. A variation of this would be to provide different colors for
different people. For example, feegee would be yellow, but heegee would
be red.
--
Carl B. Constantine University of Victoria
Programmer Analyst http://www.uvic.ca
UNIX System Administrator Victoria, BC, Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: s/mime questions
Mike and I were discussing this in private mail earlier this week... I'm sure he'll have his own things to add, but after talking with him this is my take on it: That was a pretty good summary. If anyone wants to know more, feel free to ask me off-list. To me the ideal solution to the bandwidth issue would be a system that allowed you to send the whole key with the sig to certain people, and let people request it from key servers in other cases (mailing lists). I could attach just a signature and leave out the certs when sending to certain mailing lists (using a hook to change smime_sign_command to toggle OpenSSL's --nocerts switch). However, this only decreases the smime.p7s size (after base64 decoding) from ~1700 bytes to ~650 bytes. I'm don't think there's any way to get an S/MIME signature that's anywhere near as small as a PGP signature. I know it's bad netiquette to waste other people's bandwidth, but i also think unsecure email needs to be deprecated as soon as possible. Suggestions? -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, Will Yardley wrote: Since NFS's locking mechanism is broken, I would recommend using Maildir. i think he meant that mutt itself is mounted on the NFS share. i wouldn't do this unless i had to, and i can imagine it might cause some problems, but shouldn't be a big deal if you don't have root access on the machine, maybe the admin could make you a directory on a local disc you could install mutt into? is the filer something fairly robust like a netapp? in that case i'd feel a bit less weird about it... we have customers who compile and run stuff with few problems on our netapp (from linux client machines)... Well here's the deal. /home is NFS-mounted. My spool folder is in /var/spool/mail. My other mail folders are in ~/Mail. I run my own build of mutt from ~/bin. Does this help? :) -Ken
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: To me the ideal solution to the bandwidth issue would be a system that allowed you to send the whole key with the sig to certain people, and let people request it from key servers in other cases (mailing lists). I could attach just a signature and leave out the certs when sending to certain mailing lists (using a hook to change smime_sign_command to toggle OpenSSL's --nocerts switch). However, this only decreases the smime.p7s size (after base64 decoding) from ~1700 bytes to ~650 bytes. I'm don't think there's any way to get an S/MIME signature that's anywhere near as small as a PGP signature. I know it's bad netiquette to waste other people's bandwidth, but i also think unsecure email needs to be deprecated as soon as possible. Suggestions? Well it would obviously be good if they could get the sig size down to something smaller, either through a more efficient algorithm or compressing it -- most people are in much better shape for CPU than they are for bandwidth, especially when you factor in per-minute costs for the latter. Also, they'd theoretically only need to decompress the sig if they actually wanted to verify it, and could otherwise ignore it. But I'm guessing it's too late to fix this in the specification itself, especially in things like the Outlook implementation. Maybe Mutt's implementation could support optionally compressing the signatures? It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer. You could install gpg and use it when cooresponding with lists and people that can do better than just opportunistic encryption. Having Mutt support both should make switching between the two rather easy. msg24091/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
Will, et al -- ...and then Will Yardley said... % % Michael Tatge wrote: % Ken Weingold muttered: % % Is there some weirdness that may happen with mutt run from my home % dir which is NFS mounted? % % Since NFS's locking mechanism is broken, I would recommend using % Maildir. % % i think he meant that mutt itself is mounted on the NFS share. i Right. % wouldn't do this unless i had to, and i can imagine it might cause some % problems, but shouldn't be a big deal Eh? That shouldn't cause any problems at all. People have NFS-mounted binary trees all of the time; who bothers to load a copy of every CAD package on every workstation, for instance? % % if you don't have root access on the machine, maybe the admin could make % you a directory on a local disc you could install mutt into? Not worth the bother. % % is the filer something fairly robust like a netapp? in that case i'd % feel a bit less weird about it... we have customers who compile and run % stuff with few problems on our netapp (from linux client machines)... You should be able to share disk from any sort of box for binaries; there isn't even any worry about locking. % % w :-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! msg24092/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer. Part of the problem with PGP is that only people that know enough to care use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and privately with everyone -- even Outlook and Netscape users. Even on the mutt list, there are people who use Outlook or Netscape. On most mailing lists, they form the majority. If a large number of people can't securely communicate with me, i haven't achieved the goal. So even if we wrote such an extension, i wouldn't use it. However, due to overwhelming demand and the unusual demographics of the mutt lists, i've added the following to my .muttrc so that messages i post here will be signed instead with PGP: folder-hook . 'set smime_is_default=yes' folder-hook =mutt 'set smime_is_default=no' -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research msg24093/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
Ken -- ...and then Ken Weingold said... % % On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, Will Yardley wrote: % Since NFS's locking mechanism is broken, I would recommend using % Maildir. ... % % Well here's the deal. /home is NFS-mounted. My spool folder is in % /var/spool/mail. My other mail folders are in ~/Mail. I run my own % build of mutt from ~/bin. Does this help? :) All of that is no problem, although the caveat about Maildir is not a bad idea at all. Can you clarify what sort of funkiness is going on? Is it just 'N'ew folder flagging? Does it resolve itself within a second or two? Are your client and server clocks in sync? Have you used ls to check the atime and mtime of a suspicious folder? % % -Ken 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! msg24094/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, David T-G wrote: Can you clarify what sort of funkiness is going on? Is it just 'N'ew folder flagging? Does it resolve itself within a second or two? Are your client and server clocks in sync? Have you used ls to check the atime and mtime of a suspicious folder? Really it's only sometimes, and seems to be the last folder I was in, or at least the last one modified. After changing folders, it will tell me a few times that there is new mail in that folder, but when I change to it, there is no new mail. And nothing in my procmail log. Seems to go away after a while. Not sure about clocks. -Ken
Re: mutt and NFS
Really it's only sometimes, and seems to be the last folder I was in, or at least the last one modified. After changing folders, it will tell me a few times that there is new mail in that folder, but when I change to it, there is no new mail. And nothing in my procmail log. Seems to go away after a while. Not sure about clocks. I used to have that problem, but it magically went away a few months ago. Was really annoying, though. msg24096/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer. Part of the problem with PGP is that only people that know enough to care use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and privately with everyone -- even Outlook and Netscape users. My only point was that the people that care about the bandwidth issues and that you are likely going to be communicating with are for the most part going to be people that are using a decent mailer. These people would both benefit from this kind of compression and be able to take advantage of it. The people you are likely to coorespond with that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it would also likely not need to, either because they didn't know enough to care or because they would be [American] end users who wouldn't have the same kind of per-minute costs or poor quality connections. Thus you could continue to communicate with all people the way you want, without imposing unneccessary expectations on any of them. The people you actually coorespond with may well make the above generalizations completely bogus, but I think they would hold true in most situations. Even on the mutt list, there are people who use Outlook or Netscape. On most mailing lists, they form the majority. If a large number of people can't securely communicate with me, i haven't achieved the goal. So even if we wrote such an extension, i wouldn't use it. It's worth noting again that the issue only applies to signatures, not to messages that are actually encrypted, since encryption generally implies compression as well. If people are able to encrypt their mail they've achieved a gain in relation to their bandwidth issues, and a 3k sig vs. a .2k sig is pretty much irrelevant. However, due to overwhelming demand and the unusual demographics of the mutt lists, i've added the following to my .muttrc so that messages i post here will be signed instead with PGP: folder-hook . 'set smime_is_default=yes' folder-hook =mutt 'set smime_is_default=no' Heh... even easier than I thought. Thanks. msg24097/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
Jeremy Blosser wrote: On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Part of the problem with PGP is that only people that know enough to care use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and privately with everyone -- even Outlook and Netscape users. The people you are likely to coorespond with that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it would also likely not need to, either because they didn't know enough to care or because they would be [American] end users who wouldn't have the same kind of per-minute costs or poor quality connections. yeah i think the issue is not so much of technical sophistication (although that's an issue too) as of the fact that most people Don't Care. 99% of the people i correspond with simply don't care, so i generally don't bother to encrypt or sign my communications with them. also, there are pgp front ends and plugins for most browsers/ email clients; obviously this isn't as good as built in support, but from what i've seen it's not rocket science. however the fact is - using any sort of encryption requires some amount of technical sophistication, as you have to understand some of the more subtle issues at work (both technical issues, and issues of trust). encryption used by someone without at least a basic understanding is worse (IMHO) than none at all. i don't think the difficulty of PGP is totally a bad thing - PGP is designed in such a way that you HAVE to come to a basic understanding of some of these issues in order to use it. w
Re: s/mime questions
On 2002-02-01 14:32:20 -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote: I could attach just a signature and leave out the certs when sending to certain mailing lists (using a hook to change smime_sign_command to toggle OpenSSL's --nocerts switch). However, this only decreases the smime.p7s size (after base64 decoding) from ~1700 bytes to ~650 bytes. That's not that bad, and it's actually better than compression: Because certificates naturally contain a lot of high-entropy data, compression of signatures won't yield such a large reduction. I'm right now trying this: send-hook ~Aset smime_sign_command=\openssl smime -sign -signer %c -inkey %k -passin stdin -in %f -certfile %i -outform DER\ send-hook ~lset smime_sign_command=\openssl smime -sign -signer %c -inkey %k -passin stdin -in %f -certfile %i -outform DER -nocerts\ (But I'm only signing replies to signed messages anyways.) -- Thomas Roessler[EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: Folder Hook malfunction
On 01/02/02, from the brain of Michael Montagne tumbled: I recently upgraded to 1.3.27i. To do so I found a .deb package compiled at http://friry.nom.fr/gnu/mutt/index.html . That had all the patches in in. I was mainly interested in the trash patch. I realize that it comes with no guarantees but No any folder hook with an explicit folder does not fire. Here is an example of what does not work. folder-hook spam push T'.*'enterdenter It seems that when I explicitly mention a folder, it does not run. This works: folder-hook . push T'.*'enterdenter Did something happen to make my syntax incorrect? I also tried folder-hook =spam push T'.*'enterdenter and folder-hook =spam$ push T'.*'enterdenter Now it appears that it's the listing of multiple files that doesn't work: folder-hook . push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter WORKS folder-hook . !mjmsave !rath push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter DOES NOT WORK -- Michael Montagne [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boora.com
Re: s/mime questions
The people you are likely to coorespond with that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it would also likely not need to, either because they didn't know enough to care. [...] Thus you could continue to communicate with all people the way you want, without imposing unneccessary expectations on any of them. Below, i use the term good mailer to mean one which would support a mutt S/MIME compression extension. I correspond with many people who do not use a good mailer and will never be convinced to use one. These people are in the majority on most mailing lists[1]. Many of them care about email security. I believe that at some point in the not-distant future, they will start using standard S/MIME[2]. If i used the compresion extension when i posted to lists, the majority of readers would not be able to verify my messages or securely reply to me. [1] except on mutt-dev and mutt-users, which is why i now use PGP there [2] I guess this is where we disagree - you seem to think that there is little overlap between the set of people who care about email security and the set of people who good mailers .. i think there is a lot. msg24101/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
Thomas Roessler wrote: I'm right now trying this: send-hook ~A set smime_sign_command=\openssl smime -sign -signer %c -inkey %k -passin stdin -in %f -certfile %i -outform DER\ send-hook ~l set smime_sign_command=\openssl smime -sign -signer %c -inkey %k -passin stdin -in %f -certfile %i -outform DER -nocerts\ hrmm-- i get: Verification Failure 14040:error:2107C080:PKCS7 routines:PKCS7_get0_signers:signer certificate not found:pk7_smime.c:317: (even after going back and adding your key from a previous message). also, if a key isn't there, mutt spits out this error (in the CVS version at least): Trying to extract S/MIME certificates...?Verification Failure 14047:error:2107C080:PKCS7 routines:PKCS7_get0_signers:signer certificate not found:pk7_smime.c:317: Certificate *NOT* added., and my terminal gets all messed up. perhaps a friendlier error message if no importable key is present would be good? w
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 01, Will Yardley [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: yeah i think the issue is not so much of technical sophistication (although that's an issue too) as of the fact that most people Don't Care. 99% of the people i correspond with simply don't care, so i generally don't bother to encrypt or sign my communications with them. This is the issue of why-to-sign-mails-anyway, and it comes up often enough to ignore it here... for the purposes of the issue at hand (S/MIME compared to OpenPGP, especially their respective sig sizes), let's just assume that the mails in question *are* going to be signed. /me fears yet another thread that never ends. also, there are pgp front ends and plugins for most browsers/ email clients; obviously this isn't as good as built in support, but from what i've seen it's not rocket science. The web of trust is close enough to rocket science for most people that we are never going to see encryption become a social norm through relying only on public acceptance of what that market offers now. S/MIME apparently makes it easy enough for average people that they can get benefits on basic, CA based encryption. That's not the ideal situation but it gets us closer to it than not. however the fact is - using any sort of encryption requires some amount of technical sophistication, as you have to understand some of the more subtle issues at work (both technical issues, and issues of trust). encryption used by someone without at least a basic understanding is worse (IMHO) than none at all. Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example. Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical issues involved with using SSL, but because they use it anyway, their communication is more secure than it would be without it. And because they use it, it is easily available to those of us that do understand it. And because it is a social norm and Big Companies even rely on it, when the US Congress recently suggested that they were going to break it all to stamp out terrorism, it was the big corporate guns that told them the idea was ridiculous. If they'd only attacked PGP and email encryption in it's current state, we wouldn't have gotten anything like that kind of support. There is certainly a point where misunderstanding or failing to understand what's going on will put you at more risk than not using any encryption at all, but that point is not reached by casual use of things like HTTPS or S/MIME. i don't think the difficulty of PGP is totally a bad thing - PGP is designed in such a way that you HAVE to come to a basic understanding of some of these issues in order to use it. The difficulty of PGP is what's kept it from being publically accepted as a normal thing to do, and that in turn has made it so those that DO use it are limited to a few tech-savvy subsets and real revolutionaries, both of which are easily identifiable with simple traffic analysis. People need to consider encryption completely normal, so that everyone uses it as a matter of course. This will drive the industry forward and take basic threats of government intervention completely off the table as options. Those who don't understand it could still get some benefit from it, and those of us that do understand it would get quite a lot of peripheral benefit from having all traffic encrypted, even if a lot of it were encrypted poorly. People need to accept encryption the way they accept envelopes on snail mail. They never would have globally accepted these if you couldn't use one unless you knew how to make your own adhesive, ink, and stamps. I saw Phil Zimmerman speak a few months ago at ALS in Oakland, and he understands this more than anyone. He expressed a good bit of dismay at how clique-ish PGP usage is, and how much it has missed the mark of being a way to give encryption to the masses and make it normal. He endured all manner of government harassment to defend people's right to use this stuff, and yet years later, hardly anyone is taking advantage of it. It was really interesting hearing him speak. It's too bad he had to stop due to people in the audience arguing that there was no value at all in people using PGP unless they all used it completely securely (the main antagonist noted that he keeps his private keys on a CD and never has that near his computer unless it's completely disconnected from the network), which prompted a bunch more people to complain that there was too much talking and not enough key signing going on. msg24103/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
OT: s/mime questions
99% of the people i correspond with simply don't care, so i generally don't bother to encrypt or sign my communications with them. 99% of the people don't care about good passwords, but we still force them to pick good ones. 99% of the people don't care about secure http, but amazon.com still won't let them send their credit card information without it. however the fact is - using any sort of encryption requires some amount of technical sophistication, as you have to understand some of the more subtle issues at work (both technical issues, and issues of trust). No, that's my whole point -- here's all the technical sophistication you need in order to use S/MIME with the default installation of Outlook (or, once they get the bugs worked out, Mozilla): - If there is a blue ribbon icon, the message is genuine.* - If you want to encrypt a reply, click a checkbox. Nobody except the intended recipient will be able to read it.* - If you want to sign messages or receive encrypted ones, follow the simple instructions to get a digital certificate, and then click another checkbox. * Unless Microsoft or VeriSign screwed up, and if that happened, you would have heard about it on the news by now. msg24104/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: [2] I guess this is where we disagree - you seem to think that there is little overlap between the set of people who care about email security and the set of people who good mailers .. i think there is a lot. No, I think that the overlap of set of people that care a lot about message size and set of people that don't use good mailers is small. I didn't mean you'd use this extension all the time, just that you'd use it on lists like mutt-users that were frequented by international(care about message size) and technical(have good mailers) people. ie., you'd use it like you're now using $smime_is_default, which is probably a better solution anyway. Sorry, didn't mean for that one to turn into anything worth miscommunicating about... Thomas' point about the compressability of signatures wins, regardless. msg24105/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
Jeremy Blosser wrote: Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example. Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical issues involved with using SSL, but because they use it anyway, their communication is more secure than it would be without it. And because they use it, it is easily available to those of us that do understand it. sure, but it induces a false sense of confidence. i work at a webhost, so i see lots of people who have a secure cert and still engage in questionable security practices (having credit card numbers emailed to them unencrypted, unsafe file permissions, etc) people with a low degree of technical sophistication will be happy when they see that little yellow lock in their browser; this is more misleading than if there was no encryption at all. the same is true of s/mime to an extent. first of all, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to fool someone with some sort of social engineering trick that makes a message appear to be encrypted / signed when it really isn't. this would induce a false sense of confidence. secondly, amazon and ebay receive a lot of scrutiny; however mr. or ms. john/jane q. public doesn't probably have great security on their home windows box. what happens when their passphrase keystrokes are logged and their private key is stolen? before they notice (IF they notice) someone could forge their identity. of course both of these are true for PGP, but by the time you learn how to use PGP, you've (hopefully) acquired a healthy degree of paranoia, and an understanding of the issues involved. so the issue here is trust. we don't trust amazon.com just because they have a SSL cert, but because of their size and the scrutiny they're probably subjected to. There is certainly a point where misunderstanding or failing to understand what's going on will put you at more risk than not using any encryption at all, but that point is not reached by casual use of things like HTTPS or S/MIME. i respectfully disagree. The difficulty of PGP is what's kept it from being publically accepted as a normal thing to do, and that in turn has made it so those that DO use it are limited to a few tech-savvy subsets and real revolutionaries, both of which are easily identifiable with simple traffic analysis. so let's make it easier. i think, again, that the main issue is that most people don't care enough to put the effort into it. if people start using S/MIME more, obviously i'll be happy. mike claims that someone using IE or nutscrape will by default be able to send you an encrypted message easily, and this is a good thing (if it's really that easy). personally i don't know anyone who uses S/MIME, though, and i know a number of people who use PGP (although obviously in a certain section of the population). i think that the issues which hurt adoption of either one have a lot in common. i'm worried that all of this is simply going to cause yet more fragmentation in an area that already has a lot of fragmentation. w
Re: s/mime questions
Hi! On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:36:13PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example. Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical issues involved with using SSL, but because they use it anyway, their communication is more secure than it would be without it. And Sorry, I don't think, that's correct. If you only see your lock that indicates a ssl connection, doesn't mean that it uses the right key. If you don't check the key owner you don't know if the connection is secure. And if you don't check it you don't need this kind of security. And most people I know don't care about. There are a lot of people who have there credit card number in the same pocket as the card. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | WWW: http://fsing.fs.uni-sb.de/~stse/| | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.fs.uni-sb.de/~stse/pgp.html | msg24107/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
problems with text wrappin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone. Prompted by a really dumb argument on another list I sent myself a mail from Outhouse with the text/plain settings set to wrap at 72chars Problem is, /I'm/ getting it like it's not wrapped at all? What gives? - -- Nick Wilson Tel:+45 3325 0688 Fax:+45 3325 0677 Web:www.explodingnet.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8WyfHHpvrrTa6L5oRAtxhAKCsaaY3qZgFTq9XvjHVFmO/eVfA+gCfVF5+ NYSGUgVEFzmzlTI+K1POSZ0= =NnEf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mutt and NFS
On 01/02/02 Ken Weingold did speaketh: Is there some weirdness that may happen with mutt run from my home dir which is NFS mounted? Not sure what the correlation would be, but I find that after I have been in a mailbox, once in another, sometimes mutt will tell me there is new mail in tha tmailbox, but going there, there is no new mail. It happens a few times and then seems to stop. I get the opposite behaviour. Mutt doesn't tell me about new mail in folders that it's watching. When I go there I find new mail waiting. Mutt itself is local, but my home directory is NFS mounted. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08 ...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix msg24109/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
On Feb 02, Stephan Seitz [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:36:13PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example. Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical issues involved with using SSL, but because they use it anyway, their communication is more secure than it would be without it. And Sorry, I don't think, that's correct. If you only see your lock that indicates a ssl connection, doesn't mean that it uses the right key. If you don't check the key owner you don't know if the connection is secure. And if you don't check it you don't need this kind of security. Is it better/safer overall to: a) live in a world where no one has locks on their doors, except for the very few people that know how to build their own lock from scratch and check it every morning for any scratches to indicate someone tried to break in, and the robbers just skip those and go rob all the other houses with no locks or b) live in a world where everyone has locks on their doors, most of which are very easy to pick, but the robbers have to take their chances with any given lock -- and since the locks are the normal thing, and lots of time is spent on them, even the crappy locks are better than they would be in (a) The benefits of mass use of encryption are not just the obvious ones. Reality is more complicated and interdependant than that. msg24110/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: s/mime questions
Jeremy Blosser wrote: a) live in a world where no one has locks on their doors, except for the very few people that know how to build their own lock from scratch and check it every morning for any scratches to indicate someone tried to break in, and the robbers just skip those and go rob all the other houses with no locks or b) live in a world where everyone has locks on their doors, most of which are very easy to pick, but the robbers have to take their chances with any given lock -- and since the locks are the normal thing, and lots of time is spent on them, even the crappy locks are better than they would be in (a) well if the lock gives a false sense of security and makes one develop a false sense of security, perhaps no lock is better - then you'd be more likely to sit next to the door with a baseball bat. i think your analogy is imperfect... encryption isn't like an envelope or a locked door, and most people don't care about the privacy of their personal communications as much as they do about their personal posessions / bodily safety. if you have a crappy house and no valuable posessions, you're probably not going to worry too much about locking the door; hell i don't lock my door a lot of the time. Reality is more complicated and interdependant than that. so perhaps it's best to stay away from analogies altogether we're talking about electronic encryption here, something that opens up a whole new can of worms - i don't think there are many analogies that really capture some of the complexities involved here. w
replying to more than 1 message at a time
Hi, Was looking for some way by which I could tag a bunch of messages, and reply to all of them in one edit window. ie. 'tag-prefixreply' should run vim with all the tagged messages quoted one after another. Currently, I do this : - 'r'eply to one message - save the quoted text in a temp file - 'r'eply to another message - append the quoted text to the same temp file - 'r'eply to the 3rd message - read in the temp file - compose my reply to all 3 of them ... I think you get the picture. Is there a mutt-ish or vim-ish way of avoiding this kind of repetitive work ? pv. -- Prahlad Vaidyanathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're at Witt's End. msg24112/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
This is really irritating. I am currently in a loop between two mailboxes. Change to one. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to it. No new mail. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to that. No new mail. And again and again. So mutt might not actually say there is new mail in the mailbox, but it just says Inc:1 in the status bar. So it's not losing whatever marker it has for unread mail in a mailbox. Could this help with troubleshooting? -Ken
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:26:22PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: This is really irritating. I am currently in a loop between two mailboxes. Change to one. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to it. No new mail. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to that. No new mail. And again and again. So mutt might not actually say there is new mail in the mailbox, but it just says Inc:1 in the status bar. So it's not losing whatever marker it has for unread mail in a mailbox. Could this help with troubleshooting? ---end quoted text--- check your system time. -- Pat Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 Registered at: http://counter.li.org
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, MuttER wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:26:22PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: This is really irritating. I am currently in a loop between two mailboxes. Change to one. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to it. No new mail. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to that. No new mail. And again and again. So mutt might not actually say there is new mail in the mailbox, but it just says Inc:1 in the status bar. So it's not losing whatever marker it has for unread mail in a mailbox. Could this help with troubleshooting? ---end quoted text--- check your system time. Could it be that the box is in Portland, OR, and I am in NYC, so I set my TZ env variable to EST? -Ken
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, MuttER wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:26:22PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: This is really irritating. I am currently in a loop between two mailboxes. Change to one. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to it. No new mail. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to that. No new mail. And again and again. So mutt might not actually say there is new mail in the mailbox, but it just says Inc:1 in the status bar. So it's not losing whatever marker it has for unread mail in a mailbox. Could this help with troubleshooting? check your system time. Could it be that the box is in Portland, OR, and I am in NYC, so I set my TZ env variable to EST? That might do it. I'm not that good, just had a similar problem when I was with MD8. Now SuSE 7.3 professional and love it. good luck, maybe someone here more knowledgable will comment. -- Pat Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 Registered at: http://counter.li.org
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, 01 Feb 2002, MuttER wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, MuttER wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:26:22PM -0500, Ken Weingold wrote: This is really irritating. I am currently in a loop between two mailboxes. Change to one. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to it. No new mail. Status bar says there is new mail in a folder. Change to that. No new mail. And again and again. So mutt might not actually say there is new mail in the mailbox, but it just says Inc:1 in the status bar. So it's not losing whatever marker it has for unread mail in a mailbox. Could this help with troubleshooting? check your system time. Could it be that the box is in Portland, OR, and I am in NYC, so I set my TZ env variable to EST? That might do it. I'm not that good, just had a similar problem when I was with MD8. Now SuSE 7.3 professional and love it. good luck, maybe someone here more knowledgable will comment. Don't know about that, but I do have an idea. Do you know if the box in Portland is using GMT or not? If it is, then you can set yours to GMT as well, then they should be in sync. Either that or have mutt change the TZ variable to West Coast time (Don't know the abreviation.) Knute msg24118/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: problems with text wrappin?
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002, Nick Wilson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone. Prompted by a really dumb argument on another list I sent myself a mail from Outhouse with the text/plain settings set to wrap at 72chars Problem is, /I'm/ getting it like it's not wrapped at all? What gives? Did you set Outhouse to do just a carriage return or a carriage return and a line feed? My understanding is that M$ environments see a carriage return and a line feed as the same things, where as a *nix environment sees them as 2 separate entities. If I am mistaken in this, I welcome feedback. 8o) -- Knute You live, You die. Enjoy the interval! -- Clarence msg24119/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt and NFS
Knute wrote: Don't know about that, but I do have an idea. Do you know if the box in Portland is using GMT or not? If it is, then you can set yours to GMT as well, then they should be in sync. Either that or have mutt change the TZ variable to West Coast time i think both computers think in computer time, not in person time. however the point is a good one - you might make sure that both machines are using ntp to sync the times. do you use biff or anything else that checks your mail? i've had similar problems on a machine that uses mbox, but since the machine i use most often uses Maildir, i didn't bother to figure out what the problem was. if you use mbox you shouldn't list any mailboxes you append to (like trash folders or fcc folders) in 'mailboxes'. also, the comments about using Maildir for nfs mounted folders (especially if they receive incoming mail) is probably a good idea. is the mail spool also mounted over nfs? w
Re: mutt and NFS
On Fri, Feb 1, 2002, Knute wrote: Don't know about that, but I do have an idea. Do you know if the box in Portland is using GMT or not? I don't. What will tell me that? 'date' says PST. If it is, then you can set yours to GMT as well, then they should be in sync. Either that or have mutt change the TZ variable to West Coast time (Don't know the abreviation.) Hmmm. I removed my TZ env variable and will see if things clear up. So what is the best way to have all my stuff set to EST/GMT-5 that mutt will deal with? -Ken
Re: Folder Hook malfunction
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:12:53PM -0800, Michael Montagne wrote: Now it appears that it's the listing of multiple files that doesn't work: folder-hook . push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter WORKS folder-hook . !mjmsave !rath push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter DOES NOT WORK folder-hook uses a re to match the folder, so to match multiple files one could use: folder-hook . push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter # from the bottom folder-hook (mjmsave|rath) push T'~d2w !~F'enterD'~T'enter # from the top line -- Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg24122/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
