Re: option description - always give default value
On 19:15 31 Jul 2002, Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 18:26:40 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: | * Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-07-31 15:14]: |the default value should *always* be documented. | What do you mean by documented? | the manual to muttrc should show it. | OK, so what happens if two Mutt binaries use different default values? The installed manual should be preprocessed during the build to have the correct defaults. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ Life is like arriving late for a movie, having to figure out what was going on without bothering everybody with a lot of questions, and then being unexpectedly called away before you find out how it ends.
pgp_create_traditional or not?
Morning. I just wanted to ask this, because it's been on my mind for quite a bit of time already. So, as Mutt's manual say, the old-style PGP message format is _strongly deprecated_. I shouldn't use it, then? But is the new-style PGP message format somehow unreadable for some mail clients, like Outlook? I also have this in my ~/.muttrc (they're from Rolan Rosenfield): |# Once you are done with composing a mail in vim, and |# before you press y to send out an email, just press |# S and enter your PGP passphrase to pgp-clearsign an |# email. Mutt uses PGP-MIME signatures by default, and |# several clients (most notably windows clients) absolutely |# hate the very idea of PGP-MIME :( |# Put your gpg key id below instead of my key 0xEDEDEFB9 | macro compose S Fgpg -a --clearsign -u 0x1410081E Should I use this? I've noticed, that it has some things, that I'm not so fond of - for example, it messes up the signature delimiter completely. Or should I just sign all of my mails with new-style PGP message format? I haven't studied how differently Mutt handles PGP messages in 1.5.1.CVS than in stable releases, but still... Any input? :-) -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ msg30081/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: option description - default and dependencies
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:43:15 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: not quite right - sorry. so lete me repeat: OK, perhaps I haven't understood. i want the manual to list all possibilities of default values and their dependencies to configure options - I still don't understand. What do you mean by all possibilities? If this is what I think, there are an infinite number of possibilities, e.g. a path chosen at compile time could be any path... Moreover, I disagree about giving the dependency to configure options. As I've said, the user cannot necessarily know what configure options have been used to compile the installed Mutt binary (unless you know a way to do that), so this will be useless information that may confuse him (he may think that no special configure options have been used, though this is not necessarily true). Instead, we should give the dependencies to what mutt -v displays, as these data are accessible by the user. however, i do *not* want the configure script to install different versions of manuals. I agree. If the manual refers to compile-time options to know if the default value given by the manual is correct, the user must have a way to know what options have been used. exactly - so there should be a section in the manual which tells the user about how to request info from the binary. See above. But later, I may adapt my signature to the Mutt mailing-lists with something like: send-hook ~Cmutt.*@mutt.org 'set signature=~/.sig-mutt [still hadn't the time to do that, also I'll have to remove my X-Mailer-Info header in this case, as it will be useless] my_hdr X-Signature: http://www.vinc17.org/signature Not necessarily a good idea. Some users only download the headers before choosing what messages to download, in particular when they have a temporary slow connection (for instance, this is what the mailer of the Psion 5mx does). So, it's better to have something in one's signature than in the headers. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: option description - always give default value
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 16:39:57 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 19:15 31 Jul 2002, Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 18:26:40 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: | * Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-07-31 15:14]: |the default value should *always* be documented. | What do you mean by documented? | the manual to muttrc should show it. | OK, so what happens if two Mutt binaries use different default values? The installed manual should be preprocessed during the build to have the correct defaults. But how can it have the correct defaults since there is only one manual for several binaries? -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: most commonly used regex lib for awk/frep/mutt/sed?
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:47:37PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: Is this too ambitious a wish? unfortunately, yes. Ricardo SIGNES is a man of vision, I think. If it is practical to link in a preferred regex suite, as described in his post on this thread, to allow the ERE-proficient amongst us to escape the frustrations and limitations of BREs, then my only questions are: o Do I have to dust off my rusty but revivable 'C' skills to help get this moving? o Should vim be fixed first? 'cos I think Roman is definitely right. (There's still no magic that allows + in lieu of \+) let's assume you could make this change within a day. how many setup files, scripts, shell aliases etc would have to be adjusted? can you give this service? As Ricardo implies, let's not change any. It would require that people change, and I recognise that it is only in accepting the existing tower of babel, that we have any hope of providing a simpler consistent interface for those who prefer it. besides, would everyone gain from this? Oh-oh, is this devil's advocacy? Whether it is: o The time lost by countless users individually clawing their way up the learning curve of a panoply of regex dialects, just to do a simple job. o The countless hours spent by worthy individuals reinventing the wheel for their otherwise great tool. (When the time could be spent on features which help users.) o The resulting bugs, fixes, and re-releases of these tools, impacting both developer and user. o The newsgroup and mailing list traffic due to regex knowledge already acquired not being portable. (Much energy has also been expended on the procmail mailling list, examining how their dialect can be made stranger still, as various deficiencies of the older syntax are addressed.) o The confusion sown by inconsistency. Beginner pain is exacerbated by behavioural variability. Lessons learned on one dialect must be unlearned on others. (After approximately a decade, I still send stuff to grep, rather than use vim's irregular expressions.) there is benefit enough for all. For what it is worth, dissatisfaction with dialects has found its way into the debian regex(7) manpage. It describes POSIX 1003.2 EREs as modern, and is not very flattering of BREs: Obsolete (``basic'') regular expressions differ in several respects. `|', `+', and `?' are ordinary characters and there is no equivalent for their functionality. and Obsolete REs mostly exist for backward compatibility in some old programs; (No, they can't mean vim. It has the backslash work-around, even though it doesn't have modern EREs. ;-) Hmmm. Whither mutt? Regards, Erik -- _,-_|\Erik Christiansen / \ Research Development Division \_,-.__/ Voice Products Department vNEC Business Solutions Pty. Ltd.
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
Jussi Ekholm wrote: I just wanted to ask this, because it's been on my mind for quite a bit of time already. So, as Mutt's manual say, the old-style PGP message format is _strongly deprecated_. I shouldn't use it, then? But is the new-style PGP message format somehow unreadable for some mail clients, like Outlook? I also have this in my ~/.muttrc (they're from Rolan Rosenfield): well - strongly deprecated, perhaps, but since there are only a few MUAs which have good PGP/MIME support (none of them very commonly used in most circles) it's useful to be able to send clearsigned messages. |# Once you are done with composing a mail in vim, and |# before you press y to send out an email, just press |# S and enter your PGP passphrase to pgp-clearsign an |# email. Mutt uses PGP-MIME signatures by default, and |# several clients (most notably windows clients) absolutely |# hate the very idea of PGP-MIME :( |# Put your gpg key id below instead of my key 0xEDEDEFB9 | macro compose S Fgpg -a --clearsign -u 0x1410081E Should I use this? I've noticed, that it has some things, that I'm not so fond of - for example, it messes up the signature delimiter completely. Or should I just sign all of my mails with new-style PGP message format? I haven't studied how differently Mutt handles PGP messages in 1.5.1.CVS than in stable releases, but still... mutt 1.5.1 sends traditional pgp messages with a content-type of text/plain and should work fine with outhouse and other clients. i usually send clearsigned messages if i have a reason to sign a message to a large group of people; if i'm sending to an individual i know uses mutt or some other non-sucky mua, i might use PGP/MIME. -- Will Yardley input: william hq . newdream . net .
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
* Patrik Modesto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:09 +0200]: Maybe this is stupid question but I searched man-page to muttrc and find nothing about it. So, I need to forward message that contains some attachments. But I need to edit/update the text part of the forwarded message. What I've found is forward only text part or forward whole untouched message. I need somethig between. Have you looked at resend (ESC-e)? Does this solve your problem? Nicolas
Re: most commonly used regex lib for awk/frep/mutt/sed?
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:55:42 +1000 From: Erik Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: most commonly used regex lib for awk/frep/mutt/sed? On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:47:37PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: Is this too ambitious a wish? unfortunately, yes. Ricardo SIGNES is a man of vision, I think. If it is practical to link in a preferred regex suite, as described in his post on this thread, to allow the ERE-proficient amongst us to escape the frustrations and limitations of BREs, then my only questions are: o Do I have to dust off my rusty but revivable 'C' skills to help get this moving? someone *will* need to do it. i'd definitely love to see this inlined as a ./configure knob, but a (probably quite hard to maintain) patch looks more likely. (oh gosh, how i regret i don't know enough c) o Should vim be fixed first? 'cos I think Roman is definitely right. (There's still no magic that allows + in lieu of \+) vim needs a fix really badly imo, but i don't think any such thing will happen (soon), and even if Bram jumpstarted replacing the strange cousin of re that's used in vim, it would delay the work in mutt too much. let's assume you could make this change within a day. how many setup files, scripts, shell aliases etc would have to be adjusted? can you give this service? As Ricardo implies, let's not change any. It would require that people change, and I recognise that it is only in accepting the existing tower of babel, that we have any hope of providing a simpler consistent interface for those who prefer it. if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected. besides, would everyone gain from this? Oh-oh, is this devil's advocacy? Whether it is: o The time lost by countless users individually clawing their way up the learning curve of a panoply of regex dialects, just to do a simple job. o The countless hours spent by worthy individuals reinventing the wheel for their otherwise great tool. (When the time could be spent on features which help users.) o The resulting bugs, fixes, and re-releases of these tools, impacting both developer and user. o The newsgroup and mailing list traffic due to regex knowledge already acquired not being portable. (Much energy has also been expended on the procmail mailling list, examining how their dialect can be made stranger still, as various deficiencies of the older syntax are addressed.) o The confusion sown by inconsistency. Beginner pain is exacerbated by behavioural variability. Lessons learned on one dialect must be unlearned on others. (After approximately a decade, I still send stuff to grep, rather than use vim's irregular expressions.) there is benefit enough for all. i'll sign this. -- FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 1:21PM up 2 days, 20:58, 8 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Re: Scoring questions
Lars Hecking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I Cc'd this message to mutt-users, too - I think this belongs there instead of mutt-dev] I think the documentation about scoring is quite lacking. I could somewhat agree; I've never been able to fully understand how mails could be sorted first by threads and then by score. Perhaps this would do it: folder-hook . set sort=threads folder-hook . set sort_aux=score Yes, I know you didn't ask this question - I'm just trying to find answers for myself too. :-) Anyway, what if I want Mutt to sort all mailing list folders first by thread, then by date (most recent last) and finally by score; like Slrn does for me at the moment. Could someone who uses scoring show me some examples of how you sort the folders? One of the few links I found is http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1107.mutt2.html This link actually contained pretty nice information. Not very thorough, but it was helpful. I agree with you, that the documentation about scoring in Mutt could be more thorough. I've never got the hang of how to create effective scoring system in Mutt and make it sort the mails accordingly, either. How can I determine/view a message's score value? You can add %N to your index_format. How exactly are messages flagged if the threshold is reached? This interests me greatly, as well. Can scoring only be used in sorting? I'm quite sure. Or if it couldn't be used, my knowledge about 'scoring' (which comes from using Slrn) is very narrow and I simply don't understand how scoring is effectively and powerfully applied in Mutt... Try setting some folder-hooks similar to the ones I wrote above. I think score can be given as argument to ``set sort=''. And finally, why are negative final scores rounded up to 0? Umm, sorry - didn't quite get what you mean... Advanced: how would I go about assign a score proportional to the number of asterisks in SpamAssassin's X-Spam-Level: header? Is this possible at all? Sounds a bit complicated, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would be possible. But honestly, I don't know. I haven't had the need to use these values, because all I care is ``X-Spam-Flag: Yes''. Any input and information about effective scoring is highly appreciated. It's one of the things in Mutt I've never really get hang of. -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ msg30089/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt + pcre
* Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 11:35]: if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected. assuming this is true - who would (1) prepare the transition? (2) write the patches? (3) write the documentation? (4) update the setup files? any takers? Sven
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jussi Ekholm wrote: [$pgp_create_traditional] well - strongly deprecated, perhaps, but since there are only a few MUAs which have good PGP/MIME support (none of them very commonly used in most circles) it's useful to be able to send clearsigned messages. Yeah, that's what I thought too. But I recall some discussion been taking place in mutt-users (can't remember when, not any kind of picture...) about $pgp_create_traditional and it not working properly. This was why I wrote this message in the first place. Do you have any idea why clearsigning an email with signature brakes the signature delimiter? It always changes from -- to - -- and that's not fun at all. mutt 1.5.1 sends traditional pgp messages with a content-type of text/plain and should work fine with outhouse and other clients. Ok, this is all I needed to know, thanks. :-) i usually send clearsigned messages if i have a reason to sign a message to a large group of people; if i'm sending to an individual i know uses mutt or some other non-sucky mua, i might use PGP/MIME. I've been using both pretty randomly, although I've sent quite a bit more traditionally signed mails than PGP/MIME. I even had $pgp_create_traditional ``ask-no'' -- switched that to ask-yes. Thanks for your answer. - -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9SnXrAtEARxQQCB4RAos9AKC1QRL8qi4tRvw5kfxKqA0bIC5U9ACguHRg 8MzvypZf675qf3ad5+rtPBc= =HpGf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:07:08PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Do you have any idea why clearsigning an email with signature brakes the signature delimiter? It always changes from -- to - -- and that's not fun at all. That is the way it's supposed to be, it's being escaped. If you verify the signature with EscP or check-traditional-pgp it will be un-escaped. The signature in your mail when it's not verified: - -- Jussi Ekholm ... and then the mail has been verified -- Jussi Ekholm ... -- Joakim Andersson ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://borgship.net/~tyrak/
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
Patrik Modesto sez: } Hi! } Maybe this is stupid question but I searched man-page to muttrc and find } nothing about it. So, I need to forward message that contains some } attachments. But I need to edit/update the text part of the forwarded } message. What I've found is forward only text part or forward whole } untouched message. I need somethig between. This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, tag eveerything you want to forward (including the body if you want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix forward, which if usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. } Patrik --Greg
Weird characters
I received on a list an email from someone using Outlook Express 6 and it came out as all '?'s. Anyone know why this would be? I didn't see any information at all about the ercoding or what-not. Thanks. -Ken
Re: mutt + pcre
* Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 13:57 +0200]: * Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 11:35]: if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected. assuming this is true - who would (1) prepare the transition? (2) write the patches? (3) write the documentation? (4) update the setup files? any takers? Sven, if is generally regarded as a conditional and is never in and of itself true but predicated on meeting certain conditions (in this case 1,2,3,4) To add to your list of Q's: (0) what exactly is a bullshit detector? (0.1) is it worth discussing something even if only theoreticly? (0.2) return to 0? best cal
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
* Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:52]: To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, tag everything you want to forward (including the body if you want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix forward, which is usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. yup.. This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. but i wonder where you would improve the intuitiveness of that. suggestions? Sven
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
* Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 13:04]: I received on a list an email from someone using Outlook Express 6 and it came out as all '?'s. Anyone know why this would be? Outlook Express? Sven -- Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outcast/Outage Excess | Doubtlook Distress | Out-of-luck-Express Outloo LookOutExpress! Turn off HTML in mails - dammit: Extras:Optionen:Senden:Nachricht_Senden-Format:Nur-Text
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: * Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 13:04]: I received on a list an email from someone using Outlook Express 6 and it came out as all '?'s. Anyone know why this would be? Outlook Express? Yes. Turns out it is from Korea, and when I bounced it to Outlook at work it came out as text. Mutt's pager sees it as all question marks. -Ken
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joakim Andersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:07:08PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Do you have any idea why clearsigning an email with signature brakes the signature delimiter? It always changes from -- to - -- and that's not fun at all. That is the way it's supposed to be, it's being escaped. If you verify the signature with EscP or check-traditional-pgp it will be un-escaped. Hello Joakim. Hello tyrak. :-) Argh, stupid me - of course! I see I still have a whole lot to learn. Thanks a lot, this removed a big bunch of confusion from my head. This was such a great enlightenment, that it really made me understand how to interpret clearsigned emails from within Mutt. Thanks again. - -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9SokMAtEARxQQCB4RAtHVAJ96CpugdVSvNw1S9wl3X/PmpPiN8QCeJBdQ AS+PLt88IYu8kvN5Ab+TXL4= =xDPU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mutt + pcre
From: Calum Selkirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:03:20 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mutt + pcre i somehow missed the Sven's message, so i'm replying to this one * Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [2002-08-02 13:57 +0200]: * Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 11:35]: if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected. assuming this is true - who would (1) prepare the transition? (2) write the patches? (3) write the documentation? (4) update the setup files? any takers? 2 i cannot do will gladly take 3 what exactly mean 1 and 4? Sven, if is generally regarded as a conditional and is never in and of itself true but predicated on meeting certain conditions (in this case 1,2,3,4) To add to your list of Q's: (0) what exactly is a bullshit detector? (0.1) is it worth discussing something even if only theoreticly? (0.2) return to 0? Calum, i'm not sure how to parse your message. Does the #0 above suggest that what i'm saying is bullshit? -- FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 3:51PM up 2 days, 23:27, 10 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.03, 0.06
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
Jussi -- ...and then Jussi Ekholm said... % % Morning. Hiya! The short form: 1) mutt 1.4 and earlier required a patch (Aaron(?) wrote an early one and then Dale wrote the one that replaced it) to tweak $pgp_create_traditional so that it would twist and bend to suit Outhouse, but 1.5 and up now writes for LookOut! without modification. 2) You shouldn't need the S macro anymore because you can turn $p_c_t on and off. [And I see that you've had your sig delimiter escaping answered.] Note, though, that $p_c_t will not work for non-ASCII content or attachments; piping the whole message thru a macro is the only way to sign and/or encrypt the attachments. 3) Finally, this is something of a religious issue, so you'll have to pray and come up with your own direction ;-) I use MIME sig almost all of the time (I'll rarely sign in-line or even more rarely not sign at all) even though I know that it means that some folks have a challenge wrapping their teeth around it; most of them wouldn't be happy with an in-line sig any more than with a MIME sig so it doesn't really matter there. Arguments regarding why we should turn on $p_c_t are certainly not invalid, though they haven't been enough to sway me yet. 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! msg30101/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
Sven Guckes sez: } * Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:52]: } To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally } want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, } tag everything you want to forward (including the body if you } want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix } forward, which is usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your } editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit } the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. } } yup.. } } This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. } } but i wonder where you would improve the intuitiveness of that. } suggestions? With a quad-option (defaulting to ask-yes?). The option (I can't think of a good name... forward-includes-attachments is too long), when set, would make the ordinary forward action act as if all attachments had been tagged, i.e. when you forward then all attachments are forwarded with it. When it isn't set then mutt exhibits the current (unintuitive?) behavior. I would consider it much more intuitive if forwarding a message forwarded everything sent to me in that message, not just the text, but given that that was not what was programmed in the first place I can only assume that there was some demand to have forwarding only forward the message body. I would, in fact, be just as happy if there were no quad-option and the default behavior was just to forward all attachments. Those who wanted only specific attachments could either delete the unnecessary ones in the compose screen or use the tag attachments tag-forward thing that is currently required to forward all attachments. I think either solution is better (easier and more intuitive) than the current situation. } Sven --Greg
Re: option description - always give default value
Vincent Lefevre writes: The installed manual should be preprocessed during the build to have the correct defaults. But how can it have the correct defaults since there is only one manual for several binaries? What several binaries? My system has only one /usr/local/bin/mutt. Cameron means that, at compile/configure time, the source of the man page would be modified programmatically to agree with the ./configure options. (Which is, btw, the best solution.) -- Chris music is what numbers feel like San Francisco, CA
Re: mutt + pcre
* On 2002.08.02, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Calum Selkirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with pcre actually expected. assuming this is true - who would (1) prepare the transition? (2) write the patches? (3) write the documentation? (4) update the setup files? any takers? Sven, if is generally regarded as a conditional and is never in and of itself true but predicated on meeting certain conditions (in this case 1,2,3,4) If it is true that a hypothetical mutt executable linked with libpcre causes virtually no problems with confusion To add to your list of questions: What's the trouble here? Why am I defending Sven, and what does this say about your posting? Anyway, I don't think it's particularly true. We already have had clashes where someone (generally a Linux user) posts GNU-compatible regexes that are not EREs, and someone else using standard EREs cannot use the macro, limit, or whatever, and must post again asking for explication, debugging, whatever, and it takes a few iterations to figure out the trouble. This would only get worse once one can enable PCREs. I'm not judging whether that's okay, just predicting that it will happen. -- -D.Fresh fruit enriches everyone. Takes the thirst Sun Project, APC/UCCO out of everyday time. A pure whiff of oxygen, University of Chicago painting over a monochrome world in primary colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that. It's why everyone loves fruit.
Re: Scoring questions
* On 2002.08.02, in 20020802115532.GC12347@erpland, * Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lars Hecking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I Cc'd this message to mutt-users, too - I think this belongs there instead of mutt-dev] Maybe, but it's also a request for someone to further develop the documentation. :) Anyway, what if I want Mutt to sort all mailing list folders first by thread, then by date (most recent last) and finally by score; like Slrn does for me at the moment. Could someone who uses scoring show me some examples of how you sort the folders? I don't believe you can, until Daniel's latest threading patches make it into 1.5.n, n=2. The new patches will isolate threading from sorting, so that you enable or disable threads but still have two sort parameters. This interests me greatly, as well. Can scoring only be used in sorting? I'm quite sure. Or if it couldn't be used, my knowledge about 'scoring' (which comes from using Slrn) is very narrow and I simply don't understand how scoring is effectively and powerfully applied in Mutt... No, the ~n pattern operator evaluates scores. You can color, limit, search, etc. based on scores. E.g.: macro index ! limit~n 500-enter \ Show only the really important stuff But I don't know a lot. I don't use scoring, because I find that I have to use it consistently for all my mail to make it useful for any of my mail. -- -D.Fresh fruit enriches everyone. Takes the thirst Sun Project, APC/UCCO out of everyday time. A pure whiff of oxygen, University of Chicago painting over a monochrome world in primary colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that. It's why everyone loves fruit.
Re: option description - always give default value
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:14:27 -0700, Chris Palmer wrote: What several binaries? My system has only one /usr/local/bin/mutt. There are systems with multiple binaries. Please read the thread. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: option description - always give default value
Vincent Lefevre writes: There are systems with multiple binaries. It's up to the sysadmin to keep the man pages in the same directory prefix as the binaries. /usr/foo/man/man1 should correspond to /usr/foo/bin, et c. -- Chris music is what numbers feel like San Francisco, CA
Re: option description - always give default value
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:01:18 -0700, Chris Palmer wrote: Vincent Lefevre writes: There are systems with multiple binaries. It's up to the sysadmin to keep the man pages in the same directory prefix as the binaries. /usr/foo/man/man1 should correspond to /usr/foo/bin, et c. We agreed that there should be only one manual. Again, read the thread. -- Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
* On 2002.08.02, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:52]: To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, tag everything you want to forward (including the body if you want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix forward, which is usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. yup.. This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. but i wonder where you would improve the intuitiveness of that. suggestions? I find that these improve intuitiveness. I on;y use the attachment menu when I want to forward a specific attachment and leave the rest out. message-hook . set mime_forward=ask-no message-hook ~h multipart set mime_forward=ask-yes -- -D.Fresh fruit enriches everyone. Takes the thirst Sun Project, APC/UCCO out of everyday time. A pure whiff of oxygen, University of Chicago painting over a monochrome world in primary colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that. It's why everyone loves fruit.
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:51:52AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, tag eveerything you want to forward (including the body if you want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix forward, which if usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. --Greg Wow, I have been trying to figure this one out for a long time, thanks! -- David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg30111/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
* Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 13:15]: On Fri, Aug 2, 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: * Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 13:04]: I received on a list an email from someone using Outlook Express 6 and it came out as all '?'s. Anyone know why this would be? Outlook Express? Yes. Turns out it is from Korea, and when I bounced it to Outlook at work it came out as text. you found a Korean garbage to text converter! congratulations!! finally - some use for OE! :-) Sven [now all this M$ stuff seems to make sense...]
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: Yes. Turns out it is from Korea, and when I bounced it to Outlook at work it came out as text. you found a Korean garbage to text converter! congratulations!! finally - some use for OE! :-) Gee, thanks, Sven. You've been a huge help. ;-) -Ken
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
At 10:22 PM +0200 2002/08/02, Sven Guckes wrote: you found a Korean garbage to text converter! congratulations!! finally - some use for OE! :-) I think it started out life as a Korean text to garbage converter. So it makes sense that only OE would be able to convert the gibberish back to text. Hmm. Maybe it's actually a Korean text encryption device? Or maybe a Korean text steganography device? -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++): a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI$ P+++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+() DI+() D+(++) G+() e++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Re: OE^{2k} = OE ?
* Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 21:43]: At 10:22 PM +0200 2002/08/02, Sven Guckes wrote: you found a Korean garbage to text converter! congratulations!! finally - some use for OE! :-) I think it started out life as a Korean text to garbage converter. So it makes sense that only OE would be able to convert the gibberish back to text. maybe OE is invers to itself? like rot13? hmm... Hmm. Maybe it's actually a Korean text encryption device? Or maybe a Korean text steganography device? let's face it - hangul *is* cryptology. it may not be strong cryptology like chinese or japanese, but, hey, it's *much* better than rot13, isn't it? Sven [and then there's Polish - extracts the vowels and bzips it]
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
David Champion sez: } * On 2002.08.02, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], } * Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: } * Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:52]: } To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally } want to you need to go to the attachments view of the message, } tag everything you want to forward (including the body if you } want to forward that), and then tag-forward (i.e. tag-prefix } forward, which is usually ;f). You'll find yourself in your } editor with whatever text you're forwarding, and when you exit } the editor the attachments will be there on the compose screen. } } yup.. } } This one of the less intuitive parts of mutt. } } but i wonder where you would improve the intuitiveness of that. } suggestions? } } I find that these improve intuitiveness. I on;y use the attachment menu } when I want to forward a specific attachment and leave the rest out. } } message-hook . set mime_forward=ask-no } message-hook ~h multipart set mime_forward=ask-yes Not bad, but mime_forward does the wrong thing also. It's great if you want to forward an entire message (which, occasionally, I do), but it doesn't serve the more common case of wanting to forward everything in the message as parts of your message and adding a comment to the forwarded message body. --Greg
Re: Weird characters - from OE?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2002, Brad Knowles wrote: At 10:22 PM +0200 2002/08/02, Sven Guckes wrote: you found a Korean garbage to text converter! congratulations!! finally - some use for OE! :-) I think it started out life as a Korean text to garbage converter. So it makes sense that only OE would be able to convert the gibberish back to text. Nope. Mozilla mail opens it fine. Apple Mail (formerly NeXTSTEP Mail I believe) opens it fine. Hmm. Maybe it's actually a Korean text encryption device? Or maybe a Korean text steganography device? My guess is that it's encoded, but I'm not sure how. Is there Base64-encoded text? I'm using Spam Assassin and it caught that. -Ken
Re: forwarding with attachments but...
Greg, et al -- ...and then Gregory Seidman said... % ... % } * Gregory Seidman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-02 12:52]: % } To forward a message with attachments as you would naturally Well, as *you* would want, anyway... ... % Not bad, but mime_forward does the wrong thing also. It's great if you want % to forward an entire message (which, occasionally, I do), but it doesn't % serve the more common case of wanting to forward everything in the message % as parts of your message and adding a comment to the forwarded message % body. I don't get it. If you're forwarding an entire message, why not just forward it whole and put your intro comments in *your* body? I don't see why anyone would want to keep changing the original as it gets forwarded along... % % --Greg 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! msg30118/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
