Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alain Bench [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday, August 3, 2002 at 4:43:48 PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed I wonder why Mutt changes charset from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8. Is this a known behaviour - anyone? I send an email, which is traditionally signed, from Mutt 1.5.1i to a person who uses Mutt 1.4i. In this one particular case, scandinavian characters (äöå) were all messed up in his Mutt (1.4i) when he received my email. Here in your mail, your chars are good, and show up perfectly in my Mutt 1.4 on a latin-1 terminal. What's strange is that they were in UTF-8 instead of simple latin-1 charset, what would have been sufficient. Perhaps you have a bad $send_charset, or perhaps that's I noticed that as well. All I can think of at the moment, is, that when you look at the default values of $send_charset, you can see that there's 'utf-8' along with us-ascii and iso-8859-1. That's pretty much everything I can think now - as I am using the default values of $send_charset. Would it be possibly catastrophous, if I'd modify $send_charset so, that it would only send mails with character sets of 'ISO-8859-1'? Any insight? the scands were messed up badly; at least ``ä'' showed up as ``Aþ'' and such forth. You mean 2 chars as ä? This is the sort of things you see when you look raw an UTF-8 char on a latin-1 terminal without decoding. Yes, I mean those two chars that look like Aþ. I had to go through that email and the text my friend had quoted (naturally, written by me) and replace these two letters with 'ä'. I hate doing this kind of error correction! :-) Although, Vim makes it a bit easier with its 'c2l' commands and such forth. By the way - a bit off-topic question; how am I able to (in Vim 6.1) to find out how this character combination 'Aþ' translates from UTF-8 to ISO-8859-1, because I tried to do something like this: :s/Aþ/ä/g But Vim just told me, that no Aþ was found. Still, in future I'd like to be able to replace as many occurences as there are of Aþ with that simple search-and-replace line. Surely a config problem at your friend, I'd say probably a $charset or iconv problem, but that needs further investigations. This friend I had this email discussion, mentioned that his Mutt was compiled on, I quote: 'SUN platform'. So, it sure needs further investigations but thanks for your ideas, I'll pass them to this friend and hopefully he gets his Mutt 1.4i to understand my inline (text/plain) PGP messages. Then again, I'm thinking that should I modify the $send_charset from the default values to only 'ISO-8859-1', as I mentioned above? Something inside me tells, that if I modify that variable that way, things will not work as they used to. :-) My traditionally signed mails show up correctly, right? Well, yes and no. Make up your mind! ;-) Yes, the uml^Wscands show up well, and thanks to the CT parameter x-action=pgp-signed Mutt knows automatically it must be PGP verified. What is CT parameter? But no, the signature is bad in my 1.4: | [-- PGP output follows -- sam 03 aoû 2002 23:08:52 CEST --] | gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E | gpg: BAD signature from Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG RETURN VALUE = 1 | [-- End of PGP output -- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] Weird. ...the same mail is good verified with stock 1.5.1: | [-- PGP output follows (current time: sam 03 aoû 2002 23:10:17 CEST) --] | gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E | gpg: Good signature from Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG RETURN VALUE = 0 | [-- End of PGP output --] So, as I suspected, Mutt 1.4i seems to have some problems verifying signatures from 1.5.1.CVS. Or am I completely wrong about this? It's just that I haven't ran into this kind of situation, where 1.4i would show that the signature is bad but 1.5.1 would recognize it as a good one. I'm actually pretty much lost with this, I haven't enough knowledge to say something for sure... ...and is also good outside Mutt: That's strange... All your other mails verify good in 1.4, but 2. The 2 only containing non-Ascii chars (both UTF-8). A bug in 1.4? Or a bug in my heavily patched 1.4 setup? Someone else? This is what interests me very much, too. Does vanilla Mutt 1.4i have a bug concerning this issue? Anyway, thanks a lot, Alain, for going through this much trouble to help me figure this thing out. Although, as I mentioned, my knowledge about PGP signatures and how Mutt handles them is low, so more enlightened persons could maybe shed some more informative light on this case. - -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9TQqqAtEARxQQCB4RAs6AAJoDz5tDeIrcHa8wIZjZ/gQgpYz+ywCgzuV+ CU2wnaebiELNExhlh0qyCps= =uMs0 -END PGP
Mutt 1.4i folder.index and folder.index.ids files ?
Having recently upgraded to 1.4i I noticed it has a set of the above files for
each folder (Maildir).
Unfortunately, this seems to have had a performance hit, especially on folders
that contain a large number of items. Whereas before it took about 7 minutes
to open a folder with 50 000 items it now takes about 15 - 20 minutes.
I have scoured the man pages for mutt and muttrc and /usr/local/doc/mutt but
can find no mention of these nor any way to affect their use. There is mention
in ChangeLog of *_cert functions but these do not seem to correlate.
I am using reiserfs which would otherwise be quite quick so would like to
swich off this funtionality.
Any help gratefully received.
:-{
MTIA
--
Paul A. Cheshire | A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash
Linux User # 73079| advance.
No fences?|
No Gates required.|
SPAM enters BLACKHOLE !
msg30155/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Mutt 1.4i folder.index and folder.index.ids files ?
On Sun 04-Aug-2002 at 01:28:05 +0100, Paul A. Cheshire wrote: Having recently upgraded to 1.4i I noticed it has a set of the above files for each folder (Maildir). Oh, where did you get that mutt? mutt doesn't generate reverse-index files and I'm not aware of any patches that do this (it would be interesting if there were). Try moving the files and see if mutt recreates them. -- Bruno
mv /var/mail/hans mbox safely, visual bell
Hello, how can I move in a script mail from the spoolfile to mbox safely (with locking)? How can I set in mutt to do visal bell instaed of audible? Thanks -- Hans Ginzel
Re: option description - always give default value
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 04:22:03AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: * Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-04 01:02]: On my systems I frequently have several mutts installed. Each has its own manual page because each has its own install tree. The /usr/local/bin/mutt is a symlink to the appropriate mutt binary in its respective tree, and so is the manual entry. Users wanting the nondefault mutt put /opt/mutt-version/bin in their PATH and /opt/mutt-version/man in their MANPATH. Users like history majors and non-cs minors never edit their PATH because they no freakin' clue about this. that's too broad a generalization. Last week I was having a nice chat with a fellow whose field of expertise is economics. He's also a well-known contributor to XEmacs... -- Thomas E. Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
BUG - wrapping lines in muttrc
Hi, I think I may have found a possible bug in the way .muttrc is parsed. I ran into this while setting up a folder-hook option. If \ is the last character on a line that's commented out, mutt seems to read the line instead of ignoring it. Here are my test cases: Test Case 1 - = #folder-hook .\ folder-hook (mutt-users|debian-.*|vim) \ push delete-pattern~r6wenter = Result - The folder-hook does not work. Test Case 2 - = #folder-hook .\Space folder-hook (mutt-users|debian-.*|vim) \ push delete-pattern~r6wenter = Result - The folder-hook is enabled. Could somebody please reproduce this and verify that it is indeed the case? If it is verified I will file a bug report. Thanks, Andy
Re: mv /var/mail/hans mbox safely, visual bell
* Hans Ginzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-04 14:43]: how can I move in a script mail from the spoolfile to mbox safely (with locking)? script as in does not use mutt at all? dunno. How can I set in mutt to do visal bell instaed of audible? unset beep unset beep_new however, visual bell is a feature of the terminal. Sven
Re: BUG - wrapping lines in muttrc
--gj572EiMnwbLXET9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Andy Saxena [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2002-08-04 13:40 -0400: Hi, =20 I think I may have found a possible bug in the way .muttrc is parsed. I ran into this while setting up a folder-hook option. =20 If \ is the last character on a line that's commented out, mutt seems to read the line instead of ignoring it. =20 Here are my test cases: Test Case 1 - =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D #folder-hook .\ folder-hook (mutt-users|debian-.*|vim) \ push delete-pattern~r6wenter =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Result - The folder-hook does not work. Shouldn't it be folder-hook . \ ^ Test Case 2 - =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D #folder-hook .\Space folder-hook (mutt-users|debian-.*|vim) \ push delete-pattern~r6wenter =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Result - The folder-hook is enabled. =20 Could somebody please reproduce this and verify that it is indeed the case? If it is verified I will file a bug report. I don't see the bug :) -Andre --gj572EiMnwbLXET9 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 iD8DBQE9TWfZWkhBtALlJZ0RAv52AJ4l/icuyIt8YamVWWhQinHg7FSPRwCfVETH vQUcOQoOcPCo3iFuQyHBBE4= =Fvqs -END PGP SIGNATURE- --gj572EiMnwbLXET9--
Re: Mutt 1.4i folder.index and folder.index.ids files ?
Bruno Postle [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] asserted:
On Sun 04-Aug-2002 at 01:28:05 +0100, Paul A. Cheshire wrote:
Having recently upgraded to 1.4i I noticed it has a set of the above
files for each folder (Maildir).
Oh, where did you get that mutt?
mutt doesn't generate reverse-index files and I'm not aware of any
patches that do this (it would be interesting if there were).
Try moving the files and see if mutt recreates them.
--
Bruno
Yupp, isn't it always the way. You look and look and just after you ask, you
find! I removed the files and just before doing so looked at the contents,
only to find they belong to Kmail! I must have recently (accidentally, of
course) started Kmail after I upgraded to SuSE 8.0
Thanks any way, folks...
:-{ [wanders off stage left, sheepishly]
--
Paul A. Cheshire | It's bad luck to be superstitious.
Linux User # 73079| -- Andrew W. Mathis
No fences?|
No Gates required.|
SPAM enters BLACKHOLE !
msg30162/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Automatic save-hooks?
* On 2002.08.03, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Chris Stork [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Problem: I handed out loads of addresses of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to automatically save emails to this address to =SENDERSPECIFIC, where automatically means that I don't want to put a save-hook line into my muttrc file. ... message-hook '~C cs-.*@nil\.ics\.uci\.edu' command You could have procmail automatically put a save-hook into a separate file which your .muttrc sources, and set that message-hook to re-source that file. -- -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: pgp_create_traditional or not?
Jussi, et al -- I don't have a lot to suggest, but a couple of things pop to mind... ...and then Jussi Ekholm said... % % Alain Bench [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % On Saturday, August 3, 2002 at 4:43:48 PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: % % Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed ... % This friend I had this email discussion, mentioned that his Mutt was % compiled on, I quote: 'SUN platform'. So, it sure needs further Heh. I bet you're just drowning in the flood of details! :-) % investigations but thanks for your ideas, I'll pass them to this % friend and hopefully he gets his Mutt 1.4i to understand my inline % (text/plain) PGP messages. Have you tried sending a really-and-truly just-ASCII message for him to verify? I haven't played with 1.5 to know one way or the other, but the way $p_c_t works (or used to) is that it is only good for ASCII, and if you throw in attachments or other charsets then it will roll back to MIME. Now admittedly these messages, with your scands inside, are also in-line signed, but I wonder if that's entirely healthy. ... % Yes, the uml^Wscands show up well, and thanks to the CT parameter % x-action=pgp-signed Mutt knows automatically it must be PGP % verified. % % What is CT parameter? The Content-Type header. Look back at the first quoted line here in this reply :-) % % But no, the signature is bad in my 1.4: % % | [-- PGP output follows -- sam 03 aoû 2002 23:08:52 CEST --] % | gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E % | gpg: BAD signature from Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] % | GPG RETURN VALUE = 1 % | [-- End of PGP output -- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] % % Weird. Weirder still, it's good for me! % % ...the same mail is good verified with stock 1.5.1: % % | [-- PGP output follows (current time: sam 03 aoû 2002 23:10:17 CEST) --] % | gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E % | gpg: Good signature from Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] % | GPG RETURN VALUE = 0 % | [-- End of PGP output --] % % So, as I suspected, Mutt 1.4i seems to have some problems verifying % signatures from 1.5.1.CVS. Or am I completely wrong about this? It's Nope; both of your messages were fine. That sorta shoots a hole in my theory that you should stick to plain us-ascii for in-line signing, but I still say it's worth following up :-) 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! msg30164/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BUG - wrapping lines in muttrc
On Sun 04-Aug-2002 at 01:39:21 -0400, Andy Saxena wrote: I think I may have found a possible bug in the way .muttrc is parsed. I ran into this while setting up a folder-hook option. If \ is the last character on a line that's commented out, mutt seems to read the line instead of ignoring it. The \ at the end of the line continues the comment: # this is a comment that \ continues over multiple \ lines. I was caught by this, vim syntax highlighting isn't 100% with such obscure stuff. -- Bruno
Re: exceptional people
* On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 04:22:03AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: Users like history majors and non-cs minors never edit their PATH because they no freakin' clue about this. * Thomas E. Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-04 15:52]: that's too broad a generalization. Last week I was having a nice chat with a fellow whose field of expertise is economics. He's also a well-known contributor to XEmacs... and i met a composer who programs in assembler and i met a surgeon who gave courses on unix. but these people *are* exceptions! however, there are many people who open Word to send an email. and i would never suggest that they should be using mutt. after all i dont want the RSPCA chasing me.. ever done support for a newbie? i bet some of you know how it is: adjust the $MANPATH in your $HOME/.shellrc so you'll get the corresponding manual for you mutt binary which should be in your $PATH (probably in ~/bin - and don't put '.' in there) - then you can read man muttrc to set up a variable which in effect does whatever - but take care this does interfere with any hooks; so check on the command line whether foo is set, and *don't* use push to do those automatic things because that's done by the rules in the procmailrc... *some* of them might understand the necessity of independent mail *user* agent and mail *delivery* agent. but only some. but it takes some special people to fiddle with commands, the command line, and those hooks. but only very very weird people will ever adjust the MANPATH to the current binary. then again... some people may need this. Sven
Re: antispam addresses on mailing lists?
* Paul A. Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-04 17:46]: From: Paul A. Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i've seen a lot of those antispam addresses on Usenet - but on *mailing* lists? sheesh! Sven [editing procmailrc]
Re: exceptional people
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 08:00:07PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: * On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 04:22:03AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: Users like history majors and non-cs minors never edit their PATH because they no freakin' clue about this. * Thomas E. Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-04 15:52]: that's too broad a generalization. Last week I was having a nice chat with a fellow whose field of expertise is economics. He's also a well-known contributor to XEmacs... and i met a composer who programs in assembler and i met a surgeon who gave courses on unix. but these people *are* exceptions! true. but among the population of programmers, the fraction that produce anything useful is also so small as to be negligible (certainly less than 5%). however, there are many people who open Word to send an email. and i would never suggest that they should be using mutt. after all i dont want the RSPCA chasing me.. ever done support for a newbie? i bet some of you know how it is: sure - as well as get tech-support from people who work from a checklist (did you set $PATH, did you set $DISPLAY). fortunately for my state of mind, the worst of those are over in Redhat's mailing lists, to which I won't subscribe because of the volume... -- Thomas E. Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: pgp_create_traditional or not?
On Sunday, August 4, 2002 at 2:06:19 PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Would it be possibly catastrophous, if I'd modify $send_charset so, that it would only send mails with character sets of 'ISO-8859-1'? Any insight? Last time someone tried, some of his mails were labeled with unknown-8bit charset. He lost his job, his wife is gone, car stolen, and on the road children begun casting stones at him. I'd not recommend it. ``ä'' showed up as ``Aþ'' and such forth. You mean 2 chars as ä? Yes, I mean those two chars that look like Aþ. Let's be precise: - ä C3 A4 (latin-1: A tilde, monetary sign) is the UTF-8 for ä. - Aþ 41 FE (latin-1: A, little thorn) is not a valid UTF-8 string. I tried to do something like this: :s/Aþ/ä/g :s/ä/ä/g perhaps? in future I'd like to be able to replace as many occurences as there are of Aþ with that simple search-and-replace line. Best is to have good setup on both sides: automatic UTF-8 decoding, and/or no more UTF-8 at all. thanks for your ideas, I'll pass them to this friend He could perhaps detail his iconv and $charset setup here? When something is broken there, you see on your terminal raw chars without charset conversion. UTF, but also all other charsets. Not so annoying when all received mails are in the same charset as your terminal, but... What gives: | $ iconv -f utf-8 -t iso-8859-1 /dev/null echo OK | OK ...OK, or unsuported as: | $ iconv -f utf-8 -t silly-charset /dev/null echo OK | iconv: conversion to silly-charset unsupported And is his Mutt correctly linked with the library iconv functions? And of course is his $charset=iso-8859-1? thanks to the CT parameter x-action=pgp-signed Mutt knows automatically it must be PGP verified. What is CT parameter? Content-Type: header field, with parameter=value thing. My traditionally signed mails show up correctly, right? no, the signature is bad in my 1.4 It's due to my setup. Mutt 1.2.5 and a stock 1.4 verifies well your signatures. I'm trying to find the culprit patch, compiling test versions while I write this mail... Result later. Later: it's a patch I (obviously badly) backported from 1.5 to detect the x-action= parameter in inline PGP signed mails... It works well, but seems to lead Mutt to first decode UTF-8 before passing the mail to GPG. Unlike check-traditional-pgp (ESC P) which gives raw mail to GPG. I'll have to look at this... :-( Bye!Alain.
