Re: how to verify emails from web
Sure, I forgot the attachment:
messages-161001-firefox-mutt-postfix.txt.gz
JCB, pls. read the previous message carefully!
On 161003-17:26+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'll go from:
> http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.203452.32d635ea.en.html
> which is:
> 20160918203452.GA30793@g0n.xdwgr in subscribers' mutt archive [*]
>
> I'll go from there simply because this topic should build just a little from
> there, and because I'm gasping for freedom (can't articulate this fully, but
> exactly the new reduced-to-my-participation Mutt archive over at those pages
> of mine is where my meaning, to really careful, and clever, and attentive,
> reader already can be clear).
>
> I'm very conservative, because I hate exploits on my system. In a system
> without hidious systemd and its accomodators and associates (dbus, *kits,
> pulse et al.), there is much less room for exploits, and among the distros,
> Gentoo allows me to have a sans-dbus sans-systemd system fully deployed with
> all that I need. Mutt, Postfix (for sending only, still), Getmail and Maildop
> will never depend on those sans-unix idiocies financed by one-ring cravers
> behind big world subjects' façades, and neither will Firefox, Wireshark,
> LibreOffice, Vlc, Mplayer, FFmpeg, Inkscape, Gimp, Pari, Vdr (I hope) and
> other programs that I use/need ever depend on those... And grsecurity/PaX I
> hope won't ever go fully commercial, as that would mark the beginning of the
> true death for FOSS GNU/Linux. (I'll try and call attention to this thought of
> mine at Grsecurity Forums.)
>
> For my strong privacy-wise attitude (the above paragraph is all indirectly
> about
> privacy, simply because there is no privacy without security, and there is
> absolutely no certain and comfortable prospect of security with those exploit
> introducers that ban unix simplicity, starting from the PID 1 stupidity of
> systemd and all the way through the rest of poetterware)...
>
> For my strong privacy-wise attitude I am prepared to compromise a little
> comfort. So while it was no big deal for me always having to download raw mail
> first to be able to reply to it or inspect it, as many of us participants in
> the thread that started at:
> 20160918045359.GN31239@g0n.xdwgrp (in your Mutt (maildir) folder)
> [*]
> or from the web:
> http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.051503.664b40a1.en.html
> (
> Alas! on the web, unlike in Mutt's folder --where it didn't break--, the
> thread was broken and new started by Ian Zimmerman's message:
> http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.062133.c2dea122.en.html
> but then it's a beauty to see how it all fits for analysis:
> http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/thread/20160923.090504.1d9a912e.en.html
> Only threading in Mutt is superior to Lurker's! Or is Mailman 3 getting there
> maybe, anybody follows there what Mailman folks are doing to be able to tell?
> )
>
> Laying aside for just a moment my security-first-never-mind-comfort attitude,
> I tried to enable Firefox calling Mutt on raw messages. So in Firefox
> Preferences:
> about:preferences#applications
> for "email message", I used the GUI and stuck "/usr/bin/mutt" in there
> ( and also for "mailto", but I think the "email message" set to "Use mutt" is
> responsible; the below scenario continued to happen when I reverted "mailto"
> to the default "Always ask" )
>
> Later note: reverting "email message" to "Always ask" will open a choice now,
> one of them being mutt (the other LibreOffice which is somewhat pointless to
> me), and it will send the message like below if I choose "mutt".
>
> So, this is what happens when I click on the "Poruka kao e-pismo" ("Message as
> email" in Croatian) in the above mentioned page:
> http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160623.134629.b7534288.en.html
>
> Nothing to be seen in the GUI, but... Here's what I got recorded in the logs,
> open attachment:
>
> messages-161001-firefox-mutt-postfix.txt.gz
>
> Pls. take notice of the " port 0 " string (search with the blanks (all the
> three), best.
> (
> I can't expand much on "port 0" here and now, just:
>
> Re: php-cgi and nonexisting connections to udp/80 (and udp/0
> https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.php?f=3=2951=16341#p16324
> )
>
> Looking up the mail queue:
>
> # mailq
> -Queue ID- --Size-- Arrival Time -Sender/Recipient---
> 12AD489F452 Sun Oct 2 14:05:35 miro.ro...@croatiafidelis.hr
> (connect to 178.218.164.164[178.218.164.164]:587: Netwo
Re: how to verify emails from web
ee below why-- ( the two are identical, attaching only one: $ sha256sum 20160623.134629.b7534288-3.rfc822 20160623.134629.b7534288-4.rfc822 a8f4c511a9dc74e6d72892277d5ac6b665d17076359acde2b4af6ab1c366b1aa 20160623.134629.b7534288-3.rfc822 a8f4c511a9dc74e6d72892277d5ac6b665d17076359acde2b4af6ab1c366b1aa 20160623.134629.b7534288-4.rfc822 $ ) Sure: # postsuper -d 12AD489F ; postsuper -d 43F268A1 postsuper: 12AD489F: removed postsuper: Deleted: 1 message postsuper: 43F268A1: removed postsuper: Deleted: 1 message # mailq Mail queue is empty # As you can see if you inspect those files, Firefox will call Mutt, but won't call it in a terminal for replying to the message. Instead, it will have Mutt send the message directly as if it was in some kind of batch mode. And I almost went on to look into the headers in those tmp messages, but now I realized it's the same that you get if you simply download from that link: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr//mbox/20160623.134629.b7534288.rfc822 $ sha256sum 20160623.134629.b7534288.rfc822 20160623.134629.b7534288-3.rfc822 a8f4c511a9dc74e6d72892277d5ac6b665d17076359acde2b4af6ab1c366b1aa 20160623.134629.b7534288.rfc822 a8f4c511a9dc74e6d72892277d5ac6b665d17076359acde2b4af6ab1c366b1aa 20160623.134629.b7534288-3.rfc822 $ Just what made it send that message like that... That's really puzzling me... But all of this is a message in a... Do they have a program that keeps track when a disFAKEsenFAKEter tries to send enfakecrfakeyptfakeed messages... will this BOTTLE (but with workable and useful front topic) reach Mutt Users ML?... Pls. see: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160925.115832.1d70b5e0.en.html http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160926.164522.1d2069f5.en.html http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160926.170254.abfe14d0.en.html And more there... If those emails turned into html pages becomes unavailable, pls. use my program that I updated today to document it: https://github.com/miroR/uncenz ( Just learned two days ago, was studying all of these: baguetteDuFromage, check-bgp, cozy_ynh, dokku-md-plugin, dokku-pg-plugin, ep_padlist, gdeploy, jecode, ldapOrm, lxc-utils, miniroot, openstack-campaign, plc, plc-gnosis, puppet-gitlab, puppet-jenkins, puppetlabs-nginxpack, puppet-users, Simone, stoltenberg-speech-20110722, sunxi-debian, torfilter_ynh, vagrant-gitlab Almost none of them has "git tag" available for listing, nor checking, such as with"git tag --verify ", *currently* on them (only found a few updates by, IIRC RTyler (or similar name)with a tag, but can't find where exactly now). And none of my (primitive) programs at Github had tags anymore, up until today --I mean they had had tags [[past perfect tense]], previously, but they have (recently?) lost it, because Github, obviously relatively recently, decided that you have to upload your PGP signature to *them* (they becoming very big, will be reaching Schmoog in gynormity... or?)... What a policy! See: https://help.github.com/articles/generating-a-gpg-key/ ) Thanks for the (prospective) help! --- [*] Subscribed newbies go to your Mutt folder, hit "/" and paste "~h20160918203452.GA30793@g0n.xdwgr" --all without quotes-- and examine which of the 3 or 4 or so msgs found contain that string in the "Message-ID: " header. That's the one! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to verify emails from web
I'd like to thank Darac Marjal again. But tHere is not much to discuss about those timings. It's obvious how my provider deals with me. Every so often, they do pranks like that (it is very likely a prank, not some error). Can't stress this enough (editing Lurker source to insert a warning to that effect would have been better, but is boyond me as yet): On 160923-20:52+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > Before looking up my *frozen* lurker image: > > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/ > > remember there is no serching there, that's just a mirror, no cgi-bin lurker > scripts, a frozen mirror... but: > So in my Lurker, I was perfectly able to search and find all more easily... > ... > and by clicking on that old subject I open: > > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.051503.664b40a1.en.html > > where I want to test what I wrote in the first mail in this thread, by > downloading from the links under: > Message as email > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/mbox/20160918.051503.664b40a1.rfc822 > and under > signature.asc (application/pgp-signature) > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/attach/5@20160918.051503.664b40a1.attach > Which I did. But that's a (line 90 of the downloaded email): Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="GYkYyJI7bObpCn+O" and not quoted printable like ClausAssmann.eml from first post... I've only covered rfc822 and rfc2045 and most of rfc2046... And I guess, given that it reads: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9A1A73/U17WN0PFw" that the boundary is what separates the body and the sig. But I got where to confirm (no I couldn't, read on) my conjecture from, prior to more reading of the MIME rfc that I mentioned above. I'll try to understand this message with contains more tips (by Claus as well). http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160923.030146.8098fe07.en.html Reproducing it here: > You can debug what mutt does: > > set pgp_verify_command="/tmp/v %s %f" > > where /tmp/v is some simple script like: > > cat "$1" >/tmp/sig > cat "$2" >/tmp/body But I didn't manage to do the above. Instead the little that I read from the rfc's that I mention in this thread helped me enough. This is what verifies for me. Find it in the archive: Miro.tar.gz , which I attach. Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Miro.tar.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to verify emails from web
( this is second sending after 3 (three) hours; however it could be that marc.info server wrongly calculates the size, not my povider's prank this time; rebuild this mail from scratch if the assumption is right maybe that could help, this mail is *less than* 12k time 1.33 makes less than 20k the limit ) I'd like to thank Darac Marjal again. But tHere is not much to discuss about those timings. It's obvious how my provider deals with me. Every so often, they do pranks like that (it is very likely a prank, not some error). Can't stress this enough (editing Lurker source to insert a warning to that effect would have been better, but is boyond me as yet): On 160923-20:52+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > Before looking up my *frozen* lurker image: > > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/ > > remember there is no serching there, that's just a mirror, no cgi-bin lurker > scripts, a frozen mirror... but: > So in my Lurker, I was perfectly able to search and find all more easily... > ... > and by clicking on that old subject I open: > > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.051503.664b40a1.en.html > > where I want to test what I wrote in the first mail in this thread, by > downloading from the links under: > Message as email > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/mbox/20160918.051503.664b40a1.rfc822 > and under > signature.asc (application/pgp-signature) > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/attach/5@20160918.051503.664b40a1.attach > Which I did. But that's a (line 90 of the downloaded email): Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="GYkYyJI7bObpCn+O" and not quoted printable like ClausAssmann.eml from first post... I've only covered rfc822 and rfc2045 and most of rfc2046... And I guess, given that it reads: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9A1A73/U17WN0PFw" that the boundary is what separates the body and the sig. But I got where to confirm (no I couldn't, read on) my conjecture from, prior to more reading of the MIME rfc that I mentioned above. I'll try to understand this message with contains more tips (by Claus as well). http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160923.030146.8098fe07.en.html Reproducing it here: > You can debug what mutt does: > > set pgp_verify_command="/tmp/v %s %f" > > where /tmp/v is some simple script like: > > cat "$1" >/tmp/sig > cat "$2" >/tmp/body But I didn't manage to do the above. Instead the little that I read from the rfc's that I mention in this thread helped me enough. This is what verifies for me. Find it in the archive: Miro.tar.gz , which I attach. Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Miro.tar.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to verify emails from web
On 160923-17:53+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > > (I also first have to make a correction/addition for > the real topic of this thread that I started.) > In the first post of this topic, I also forgot that I wasn't doing my (primitive) little tutorial on a raw mail such as can be downloaded from the web, and the title says so, but I did it on the mail saved from the Mutt maildir instead. For that first post you can try and download that email: ( http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147448537331892=2 ) as raw: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147448537331892=raw (as well as the signature) and do the same procedure as I described in the first post. I'm also interested to see that I can do that on my own message that proved, but to only a few, to not verify with my PGP. And! And I'm sick of searching (be it that the reason may be me not being very apt at that interface) the marc.info for particular emails. So I will first demonstrate the power of Lurker along. Then, who knows, maybe some of you will decide to deploy Lurker for Mutt archives... The latter I'll do so that I am able to easily find and download raw mail and signature from the web and then verify it. Before looking up my *frozen* lurker image: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/ remember there is no serching there, that's just a mirror, no cgi-bin lurker scripts, a frozen mirror, that I got with: wget -m --cut-dirs=1 -nH http://my-local-apache/lurker-mutt/index.html so, in my offline apache, serching works, but not in what you can see in that rented space of my NGO. So in my Lurker, I was perfectly able to search like this: ml:lurker-mutt au:zimmerman and get all the mails that Ian posted, and easily find the first one: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.062133.c2dea122.en.html (I offer it to you, in frozen of course) and just before the next step take a look at the threading that Lurker keeps at (in frozen): http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/thread/20160918.062133.c2dea122.en.html#i20160918.062133.c2dea122 And the next step from there is going to the mail referenced as Old-Topics: Re: urlview not listing the links right and by clicking on that old subject I open: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/message/20160918.051503.664b40a1.en.html where I want to test what I wrote in the first mail in this thread, by downloading from the links under: Message as email http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/mbox/20160918.051503.664b40a1.rfc822 and under signature.asc (application/pgp-signature) http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/mutt/lurker/attach/5@20160918.051503.664b40a1.attach I'll be back after I do it, I posted this to demonstrate Lurker. Of course an much better example of Lurker deployment is at: https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/splash/index.en.html This was a lot of work. I only made it because I have, in months, occasionally spent a lot of time learning to use Lurker, I'm not really very advanced at all. Regards! (And of course, allow errata later!, and not much else, as I can't actively follow the bug fixing that is happening along on mutt-users ML) -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to verify emails from web
[[ This is expansion on the digression, but I'm not changing the title, so that this thread remains the same one thread and not be split by whatever runs the marc.info servers. ]] Thanks, Darac! This tells a lot! Allow me more time to study your very kind explanation! (I also first have to make a correction/addition for the real topic of this thread that I started.) On 160923-15:58+0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 04:39:04PM +0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > >Sure I forgot the... [see below] > > > >On 160923-15:32+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > > > >> http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147448664132307=2 > >> but for clarity I'll attach the same file here as ClausAssmann.tar > > > >ClausAssmann.tar attached to this email. > > > >--- > >A digression, don't read below if you don't have the time to. > > > >However, I'm curious, if at all this is possible (time on an eventual > >reader who would respond) to know why I got my own mail back (to be able > >to send this errata) only after some 55 minutes. > > Check the Received: headers in your message to see what took so long. > Here are the headers as I got them, with some extraneous lines removed: > > Delivered-To: mailingl...@darac.org.uk > Received: from remy.darac.org.uk > by remy.darac.org.uk (Dovecot) with LMTP id ENyWHX875VcGIAAAjhN3oQ > for <mailingl...@darac.org.uk>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:26:07 +0100 > Received: from gbnet.net (shtjevan.gbnet.net [194.70.142.36]) > by remy.darac.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3sgbHy6ZZKz1DnNg > for <mailingl...@darac.org.uk>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:25:50 +0100 (BST) > Received: (qmail 1887 invoked by uid 611); 23 Sep 2016 14:21:43 - > Received: (qmail 1792 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2016 14:20:37 - > Received: from davin.gbnet.net (194.70.142.37) > by shtjevan.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 23 Sep > 2016 14:20:37 - > Received: (qmail 22684 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2016 14:02:36 - > Received: from mail-1.fido.net (84.246.192.5) > by davin.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 23 Sep 2016 > 14:02:36 - > Received: from alt1.smtp6.plusvps.com ([89.201.164.169]) > by mail-1.fido.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for mutt-users@mutt.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:02:35 +0100 > Received: from lin16.mojsite.com ([178.218.164.164]) > by smtp6.plusvps.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for mutt-users@mutt.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:02:22 +0200 > Received: from 78-0-197-250.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([78.0.197.250]:58204 > helo=g0n.localdomain) > by lin16.mojsite.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) > for mutt-users@mutt.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:18 +0200 > Received: by g0n.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) > id F373B43; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:34 +0200 (CEST) > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:34 +0200 > > The Received: headers are prepended to the list, so we read it > Twitter-style (i.e. bottom to top). You composed the message at 15:32. > Very quickly it passed to lin15.mojsite.com. However, it then waited > there until 16:02 before being passed to smtp6.plusvps.com. The next > major delay is within gbnet.net. davin.gbnet.net receives the message at > 14:02 (16:02 your time), but only passes it to shtjevan.gbnet.net at > 14:20 (16:20 your time). The final delay comes when gbnet.net is > delivering the message to my server, and for that, we can assume this is > the time taken for the mailing list software to send the message to > multiple recipients. > > > > >Repeating: 55 minutes it took me (tried multiple times, as I realized > >pretty quickly that I forgot the attachment, and tried right away to get > >my own mail from mutt-users and send this attachment. > > > >How fast was in the case of this previous email of mine the Marc.info > >archive, and was it due to it being slow or was it due to my provider, > >whom I have beef with, decided to molest me again > >(see http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/ for a little on > >that) > >? > > > >I also checked the pages: > >http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=1=201609=2 > >and that previous email of mine really didn't show for about the same 55 > >minutes, which I know perfectly can be because of the same page being > >kept in cache at the providers and not being renewed. > > > >Thanks if anybody replies. (Pls. don't count for certain that I would > >receive your private email, they often just don't send those if they > >know I wouldn't be able to know about them and/or wouldn't be able to proof > >anything.) > >-- > >Miroslav Rovis > >Zagreb, Croatia > >http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr > > > > > > -- > For more information, please reread. -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: how to verify emails from web
Sure I forgot the... [see below] On 160923-15:32+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147448664132307=2 > but for clarity I'll attach the same file here as ClausAssmann.tar ClausAssmann.tar attached to this email. --- A digression, don't read below if you don't have the time to. However, I'm curious, if at all this is possible (time on an eventual reader who would respond) to know why I got my own mail back (to be able to send this errata) only after some 55 minutes. Repeating: 55 minutes it took me (tried multiple times, as I realized pretty quickly that I forgot the attachment, and tried right away to get my own mail from mutt-users and send this attachment. How fast was in the case of this previous email of mine the Marc.info archive, and was it due to it being slow or was it due to my provider, whom I have beef with, decided to molest me again (see http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/ for a little on that) ? I also checked the pages: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=1=201609=2 and that previous email of mine really didn't show for about the same 55 minutes, which I know perfectly can be because of the same page being kept in cache at the providers and not being renewed. Thanks if anybody replies. (Pls. don't count for certain that I would receive your private email, they often just don't send those if they know I wouldn't be able to know about them and/or wouldn't be able to proof anything.) -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr ClausAssmann.tar Description: Unix tar archive signature.asc Description: Digital signature
how to verify emails from web
This is an explanation such that less advanced users can follow, if they are, like I was, eager to learn how to verify emails from web. ( Just if you see any sigs when you follow below, do the: gpg --recv-key ) If you've been subscribed to Muut, you can follow this. Go to you mutt maildir. Do not open any messages. Hit '/' . You're in the command track in bottom. And now type (or paste this): =h 20160921191202.GB18462 and hit Enter. The first find is the message that Claus Assmann used as example. (We only need the message where that number is part of Message-ID string, not where it is part of In-Reply-To or References string.) Enter to open the message. It shows (to me and others) as having BAD signature. Notice how it turns to be for you. I have maildir, and if I would do the below, it would create a small maildir folder. So I first have to do: touch ClausAssmann.eml (I named it after the poster of the proof-of-concept non-verbose little tar archive at: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147448664132307=2 but for clarity I'll attach the same file here as ClausAssmann.tar, because I can thank Claus (and Ian Zimmermann in this other email http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147432705018043=2 ) that I now know myself how to verify mails from web. And I want to share it with less advanced than I am. Untar that file ClausAssmann.tar. The result must be: $ ls -l ClausAssmann.d total 8 -rw--- 1 miro miro 1422 2016-09-21 21:31 m4 -rw--- 1 miro miro 824 2016-09-21 21:31 m4.sig $ ) With the mail we just found opened in Mutt, type: C and save it to (the touched) ClausAssmann.eml . Now you can run this command: grep -A80 'Content-Type: text\/plain; charset=utf-8' ClausAssmann.eml \ | head -36 > ClausAssmann.eml.1 You're close to verifing that email. But not there yet, as I purposefully left the incriminating header (culprit my_hdr of Mutt being buggy as Claus Assmann stated in this mail: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147458978829311=2 ) If you now view the diff of the two files with, they're entirely different. But if you view them with vimdiff there's only the X-Clacks-Overhead line the difference... Rerun the slightly modified command: grep -A80 'Content-Type: text\/plain; charset=utf-8' ClausAssmann.eml \ | grep -v 'X-Clacks-Overhead' \ | head -35 > ClausAssmann.eml.2 Now still entirely different with diff, and completely same with vimdiff. Because it's the end of line is the difference! Solely! I can convert, the one that I saved, with Vim: vi ClausAssmann.eml.2 :se ff=dos :wq Now I can verify that email, either way, because both the incomplete parts of the raw email (the part that PGP verifies) are exactly the same: $ ls -l ClausAssmann.eml.2 ClausAssmann.d/m4 -rw--- 1 miro miro 1422 2016-09-21 21:31 ClausAssmann.d/m4 -rw-r--r-- 1 miro miro 1422 2016-09-23 15:00 ClausAssmann.eml.2 $ sha256sum ClausAssmann.eml.2 ClausAssmann.d/m4 f86f0c710b7b7feaaca11511e66c1335b35bb7c8e18c47208702fb603c393c02 ClausAssmann.eml.2 f86f0c710b7b7feaaca11511e66c1335b35bb7c8e18c47208702fb603c393c02 ClausAssmann.d/m4 $ Any of these two verify correctly: gpg --verify ClausAssmann.d/m4.sig ClausAssmann.eml.2 gpg --verify ClausAssmann.d/m4.sig ClausAssmann.d/m4 with signature good. --- Anyway, folks, it really would be time for Lurker (if only I didn't work at turtle speed... Worse, I have been sick now for almost two days, still recovering.)... Whatever the interface of marc.info, it is pretty poorly creating and following the threads. The emails that I needed to post the addresses of, would be a few seconds and not minutes to find (like I spent searhing to find the links for this email), if the Mutt archive was deployed with Lurker... Only saying. And wishing. Allow errata after I post this. Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
urlview not listing the links right
om.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3D212a61a16c=3D40bc5160c5 23 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Dabff7c90ab=3D40bc5160c5 24 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Ddaad2b5f43=3D40bc5160c5 === (without the "===" lines). and that was as intended. Also I can confirm that the the original email, the t-com_racun.O.eml shows just fine in my Lurker archive (and the link below is to its frozen image). Have a look: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.en.html That fact tells me one thing. Regardless of my aforementioned provider stepping onto standards something like M$ people do, and feeding obnoxious HTML emails to its customers, this some 15 years or so old program Lurker (they maintain it, but there has been no major rewrites of the code, nor the Mail standard RFC's, has there?...) [The fact that the some 15 yr or so old program Lurker] shows the links right and opens them right, tells me the links in that t-com_racun.O.eml email must still be within the standards, else Lurker wouldn't open it as expected, would it?... So, it appears to me, it can be only either Mutt or more likely: urlview that do not do the work here. So, unless it's only the above misgiving happens only in my Mutt, for some reason, unless only me here, the question is probably: How do I get urlview to do this right without having to covert emails, which I don't like to do, I like to keep documents as they have been sent, untouched in any way. I hope I have explained it clearly and am eager to see what could this be. Only here or? Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Mutt-1.6.2.txt.gz Description: Binary data t-com_racun.O.eml.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
urlview not listing test - 3rd
a61a16c=3D40bc5160c5 23 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Dabff7c90ab=3D40bc5160c5 24 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Ddaad2b5f43=3D40bc5160c5 === (without the "===" lines). and that was as intended. Also I can confirm that the the original email, the t-com_racun.O.eml shows just fine in my Lurker archive (and the link below is to its frozen image). Have a look: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.en.html That fact tells me one thing. Regardless of my aforementioned provider stepping onto standards something like M$ people do, and feeding obnoxious HTML emails to its customers, this some 15 years or so old program Lurker (they maintain it, but there has been no major rewrites of the code, nor the Mail standard RFC's, has there?...) [The fact that the some 15 yr or so old program Lurker] shows the links right and opens them right, tells me the links in that t-com_racun.O.eml email must still be within the standards, else Lurker wouldn't open it as expected, would it?... So, it appears to me, it can be only either Mutt or more likely: urlview that do not do the work here. So, unless it's only the above misgiving happens only in my Mutt, for some reason, unless only me here, the question is probably: How do I get urlview to do this right without having to covert emails, which I don't like to do, I like to keep documents as they have been sent, untouched in any way. I hope I have explained it clearly and am eager to see what could this be. Only here or? Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Mutt-1.6.2.txt.gz Description: Binary data t-com_racun.O.eml.gz Description: Binary data t-com_racun.eml.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: urlview not listing the links right
( I use the opportunity to now include the t-com_racun.eml.gz which didn't fit because of the austere limit of 20k for the list, that way maybe newbies can understand this issue as well... ) And when checking up how my post arrived at: http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=147417425713497=2 I'm pretty puzzled to see a different (but in a way similar) issue. The links that I included in the email do not show right. The first has the last two chars "ml" cut out from it. As is shown on that web interface, it opens: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.en.ht which of course, is "Not Found". One only needs to stick "ml" (without quotes) to it, and it's fine. But the urlview shows here as well! On that first mail in this thread that I just sent, which I BCC'd to myself, the ^B offers: UrlView 0.9: (5 matches) Press Q or Ctrl-C to Quit! ->1 http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48f= 2 http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/mbox/20160913.203031.48fe8c= 3 www.mailchimp.com/ 4 www.hrvatskitelekom.hr/ 5 http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Annoying... Thanks if anybody has a piece of advice... On 160918-06:53+0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > Hi! > > It's about urlview not doing the work, and I'd like to see if my Mutt: > > Mutt 1.6.2 (2016-07-01) > ... > System: Linux 4.7.2-hardened-r1-160906 (x86_64) > ncurses: ncurses 6.0.20150808 (compiled with 6.0) > libidn: 1.33 (compiled with 1.32) > ... > Compiler: > Using built-in specs. > ... > COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/5.4.0/lto-wrapper > ... > Configured with: > /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0/work/gcc-5.4.0/configure > ... > > (I just noticed, as I'm second-time proofreading this or so, that the above > line is suspicious to me, that's the build dir in Gentoo, and it's been empty > since my last system update... Could that be something bad, how bad?...) > > ( But anyway, pls. see what my Mutt is like by gunzip'ing the attached: > Mutt-1.6.2.txt.gz > ; it's not built with emerge --they use the sidebar and do not keep to > mainstream Mutt--, but I compiled it out-of-portage, the, let's call it > linux-form-scratch way... ) > > Or is my urlview maybe old...? Looking it up: > > # equery l urlview > * Searching for urlview ... > [IP-] [ ] net-misc/urlview-0.9:0 > # > And that's the only one available in my Gentoo Portage, so I doubt. > > What the problem is, the urlview will not find the links correctly. Pls. > follow on. > > gunzip this attached email: > t-com_racun.O.eml.gz (O for original) > > ( you can also download it from: > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.en.html > more exactly from where it reads: "Poruka kao e-pismo" (means "Message > as email"): > http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/mbox/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.rfc822 > ) > > Try to open that t-com_racun.O.eml email with: > > $ mutt -f t-com_racun.O.eml > > The folder opens. Hit Enter to view the email. Now do: > ^B > > If it's not just my Mutt, then you will get this what I paste (just I did > sed 's/http/htNOtp/' and such, to not clutter with links): > > === > UrlView 0.9: (25 matches) Press Q or Ctrl-C to Quit! > > ->1 > htNOtp://www.mailchimp.com/abuse/abuse.phtml?u=0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=daad2b5f43=40bc5160c5 > 2 > mailNOto:unsubscribe-mc.us9_0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064.daad2b5f43-40bc516...@mailin1.us2.mcsv.net?subject=unsubscribe > 3 > htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=6706e0975c=40bc5160c5=daad2b5f43 > 4 www.hrvatskitelekom.hr/ > 5 htNOtps://moj.hrvatskitelekom.hr/publi= > 6 htNOtps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=3Dcom.hrv= > ...[14 lines cut here]... > 21 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.c= > 22 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.= > 23 > htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5= > 24 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage1.com/profile?u=3D0d5eb20e= > 25 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.co= > === > (without the "===" lines). > > And that's not the links that are in this email. > > Do the following in your own $EDITOR, but the below is quicker for me to > explain than generally. (I also trie
urlview not listing the links right
a61a16c=3D40bc5160c5 23 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Dabff7c90ab=3D40bc5160c5 24 htNOtp://hrvatskitelekom.us9.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=3D0d5eb20e6e39c5bf888683064=3Ddaad2b5f43=3D40bc5160c5 === (without the "===" lines). and that was as intended. Also I can confirm that the the original email, the t-com_racun.O.eml shows just fine in my Lurker archive (and the link below is to its frozen image). Have a look: http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/cenz/iskon-tcom-mr/message/20160913.203031.48fe8c4f.en.html That fact tells me one thing. Regardless of my aforementioned provider stepping onto standards something like M$ people do, and feeding obnoxious HTML emails to its customers, this some 15 years or so old program Lurker (they maintain it, but there has been no major rewrites of the code, nor the Mail standard RFC's, has there?...) [The fact that the some 15 yr or so old program Lurker] shows the links right and opens them right, tells me the links in that t-com_racun.O.eml email must still be within the standards, else Lurker wouldn't open it as expected, would it?... So, it appears to me, it can be only either Mutt or more likely: urlview that do not do the work here. So, unless it's only the above misgiving happens only in my Mutt, for some reason, unless only me here, the question is probably: How do I get urlview to do this right without having to covert emails, which I don't like to do, I like to keep documents as they have been sent, untouched in any way. I hope I have explained it clearly and am eager to see what could this be. Only here or? Regards! -- Miroslav Rovis Zagreb, Croatia http://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr Mutt-1.6.2.txt.gz Description: Binary data t-com_racun.O.eml.gz Description: Binary data t-com_racun.eml.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
