Re: About wrapping lines.
begin Jussi Ekholm quotation: I was just wondering, that is it possible for Mutt to wrap the lines before sending the message in the editor when replying? At least Slrn handles this, and it is quite nice feature indeed. You don't want that anyway, you just think you do. If your editor does the wrapping, you can fix it if it's broken. If Mutt does it, you're stuck; you'll find out the wrapping was broken when you get the confused responses. -- Join the Sergio Brandano Fan Club: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/debian-user-199910/msg00981.html msg27779/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JAVA applet to run mutt via http
begin David T-G quotation: % yeah, but that's what he asked for. ;) It is? He specifically said that he is limited to a web browser to get through the firewall. Not his first question, his second. I was replying to it; in fact, I was replying to somebody's reply to that question, in which I don't think they even quoted the first question. It looked like he thought that a Java telnet applet would solve his problem, and I was only addressing that. It won't, given the parameters he specified in his first question. - sit at a client with a web browser - get through the firewall looking like web traffic - log in on his box at home for interactive shell processing Yes. Hence a Java telnet applet won't work. -- Join the Sergio Brandano Fan Club: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/debian-user-199910/msg00981.html msg27751/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JAVA applet to run mutt via http
begin mikea quotation: Something to keep firmly in mind when talking about this, and even _MORE_ firmly in mind if one is thinking about doing it at work, is that lots of places view circumventing the firewall as an indication that you need to work somewhere else. In fact, since Perl was mentioned, we should keep in mind that Randal Schwartz got convicted of a felony for bypassing Intel's firewall. There's more than one side to the story, but the bottom line is make sure your company allows what you want to do before you do it via their network. If they allow ssh, you're probably home free forwarding ports over it; but if they only allow port 80, check and see if they mean we allow web use only or we allow anything on port 80. -- Join the Sergio Brandano Fan Club: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/debian-user-199910/msg00981.html msg27752/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JAVA applet to run mutt via http
begin darren chamberlain quotation: * Marco Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-29 13:52]: Last but not least: what was that JAVA applet called anyway? I think you're looking for MindTerm, which google tells me is at http://www.appgate.com/ag.asp?template=productslevel1=product_mindterm. However, FYI, a Java telnet isn't going to do what Marco wants. If his company only lets http through the firewall, then running a Java telnet on his home system will give him a nice Java applet running on his side of the firewall, no more able to connect to his home system than a telnet written in any other language. Sounds like he needs some kind of http-based proxy, unless the firewall is dumb enough to let non-http things through port 80, in which case I'd recommend ssh. -- Join the Sergio Brandano Fan Club: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/debian-user-199910/msg00981.html msg27728/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: JAVA applet to run mutt via http
begin David T-G quotation: Quick -- someone write a perl script that will interface between a local ssh session's filehandles and an incoming ssh stream! I just figured run an ssh daemon on port 80 on his home box, since he probably doesn't need a web server on it. But if you wanna write that bad boy, scratch that itch, baby! :-) -- Join the Sergio Brandano Fan Club: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/debian-user-199910/msg00981.html msg27731/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Only allow mail from selected addresses
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation: 95% of all spam. I'm really quite impressed. However to rid my private inbox of that last 5% of spam I'd like to only accept messages from a list of addresses, maybe including mail that has made it into my inbox on previous occasions and addresses of people I've sent stuff to. Any ideas on how to accomplish this? Yes; with procmail, or with your MTA's configuration. I think it's a really bad idea, however; how will mail make it into your inbox on previous occasions any longer? What about mailing lists? What if it's somebody at your ISP sending you notification that you must engage in some action or lose your account? Whitelisting is horribly complicated to get right, and if you get it wrong, it's guaranteed to bounce legitimate mail. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27705/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Search on mailboxes
begin David Collantes quotation:
Is there a way to perform a search on all mailboxes, without entering any in
specific? I use maildirs and Mutt 1.5.0i from the CVS. Thanks!
sure:
man find
Pay special attention to the -exec flag.
Something like:
cd maildir
find . -exec grep -l stuff {} \;
--
Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support:
http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it
AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong
msg27686/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Company MTA has broken PGP/MIME
begin Dave Smith quotation: Can anyone think of a solution other than fetch/procmail (I'd like to keep my mail on the imap server if possible), or chainging the MTA setup? Other than those? Sure, write new code and patch Mutt. Other than that, you're either going to have to fix the broken cause (the MTA setup), or fix the broken symptom (the emails, by filtering and editing them, I.E. fetchmail and procmail and [something]). I'd butt my head against the MTA folks first, since that fixes the problem for ALL users, not just you. Good luck. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27547/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
begin Nik Engel quotation: Hi ! How can i set X-Headers of this type : To set X-Headers of any type, use the my_hdr command, which you will find in the muttrc man page. Blank X-Headers (which is what you requested) would be a standard case of that. Not sure why you want to set blank X-Headers, though. :-) -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27525/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
begin Mike Schiraldi quotation: giving me the following result: X-Uptime: 18:09:29 up 32 days, 5:40, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.08 Of course, it's a very silly flag to use, since it's so easy to fake. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27530/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature
begin Rahul Rekapalli quotation: I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine, asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline. Is there something that I have configured wrong? Please advise. No, there's something they've configured wrong. Tell them to read RFC 3156 and get back to you when their mailer supports it. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27537/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message/partial
begin Patrik Wallstrom quotation: Pat, I couldn't find your key... Is it known to be on a particular server? I know it is on http://www.keyserver.net/ and another server (forgot which). Your key is on the common keyservers. (BTW, keyserver.net has evidently collapsed down to a single server in Belgium, so it's not a good choice.) However, your key isn't self-signed, so no OpenPGP-compliant software will accept it. There are security issues with accepting non-self-signed keys. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27461/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt, pop, and HOWTOs (was Re: fork() ?)
begin David T-G quotation: I don't think we should bother with a fetchmail HOWTO just like we don't bother with a sendmail HOWTO, but *perhaps* pointers to web sites for fetchmail and getmail as well as sendmail, qmail, postfix, exim, ssmtp, and maybe a few others (or maybe only one or two, but I don't want to start a no, list MY favorite MTA! flame war :-) would cover the right amount of ground. IMHO, list as many as you can think of, but only if they have free licenses. Which of the above are excluded by this is left as an exercise for the reader, for obvious reasons. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27364/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reply including headers
begin mstevenson quotation: Is it possible to include (quote) the headers for a message I'm replying to? Yes. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27393/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fork() ?
begin Simon White quotation: Can you not just do $ fetchmail (options) $ mutt Or, better: fetchmail -d300 mutt -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27301/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List-Reply
begin Will Yardley quotation: how is mutt supposed to know which addresses are mailing lists and which aren't? IMHO, if you hit list-reply and Mutt doesn't recognize a list, it should assume you know what you're talking about, and pop up the To: address as a yes/no default. Then if you say no, it should cycle through the Cc: addresses until you say yes or q. Alternately, just do the To:, and ignore the Cc:, because people shouldn't be Cc:ing lists. But that may just be me. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27224/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin David T-G quotation: Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless someone (I volunteer) sets up a temporary mutt-and-gpg-verification-problems list to get to the bottom of it and keep me in the loop. I certainly want to get it resolved. When it is resolved, we want it in the archives, too. Otherwise that temporary list is gonna need permanent archives. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27234/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Thorsten Haude quotation: * David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-16 15:30]: Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on. It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest version, but I cannot verify David's mail. Well, it's not unusual to have an occasional unverifiable mail, but for it to be so consistent for you, it almost has to be somewhere in your MTA path, not your MUA, since nobody else is seeing it with this frequency. ALMOST has. It could be Mutt, but I don't think anybody else is going to find anything Mutt if they haven't yet. Try making a copy of your mail spool, and then edit that copy to remove everything but one of the messages you can't verify, then pump that message through gpg and see what happens. If it still doesn't verify, it's not Mutt. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27240/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin David T-G quotation: I tried this method, using my editor to write everything from the last ^From_ line down to the bottom of the folder out to a file, but couldn't get gpg to do anything with it: Argh. I forgot PGP/MIME. That method I said will only work with inline sigs. Score one for The Old Way. Sorry for the brainfart. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27245/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fork() ?
begin Nico Schottelius quotation: I am wondering why mutt has to be locked while G-taking pop mails. I think I still could work/send new mails while mutt does this work. I also think that it would be senseful, if I get 500 messages, I could start to answer the first while recieving the last 400. So my question, why don't we easily fork() this process ? fetchmail is what you want for that. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27196/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Thorsten Haude quotation: Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) That's a really old fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including problems with parsing usernames with spaces in them. Try upgrading it, and see if the problem persists. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27204/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Will Yardley quotation: And I cannot verify this one. perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list? Is this list no longer for solving Mutt-related problems? Or is it just that you think no one else will possibly ever have this problem, and only the people he'd communicate with off-list could possibly solve it? -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27205/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Newbie with mutt and fetchmail
begin Nick Lozinsky quotation: I've installed fetchmail, it works, I've put it in the background as a process with the -d 30 arg, mutt seems to start up. The only way that I can read any messages in mutt designated to my ISP's mail server, is if I read the messages first with the mail command. What do I need to do in order to have mutt receive and display my messages from my server? Either unset your spoolfile option in your muttrc and let Mutt figure it out, or set it properly. If you have a $MAIL environment variable set, it may be using that. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27148/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Thorsten Haude quotation: * Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 00:38]: Add this one to the list I just can't verify. I cannot find any suspicious dots here. Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what path it's taking to get to you, perhaps there's a broken MTA involved. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27173/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: S/MIME
begin Thorsten Haude quotation: using S/MIME in this list, what might have been their reason? Is S/MIME better established with non-free software? Exactly. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27176/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML Mail
begin s. keeling quotation: spamcop's work, and hitting that last send reports bit. Spamcop works great, except lynx tends to be the only browser that works well with their web server (Opera 5.0 is awful with it; Netscape is better; w3m I have found the same thing; I just use Lynx via urlview, and it works great. You don't want to automate that anyway, it'd defeat the purpose of feeding you the web page. When they're more confident in their defaults, they'll reopen the option for fast submissions. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27131/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Writing a memo to myself
begin Philip Mak quotation: Right now I'm doing m, pmakENTER, subjectENTER and then typing it. A side effect of this is that the memo ends up in my sent-mail folder too. You could use a send-hook to turn off the fcc when sending to pmak. Make sure to create a default send-hook turning it on first. Oh, is it a bug that when I press y to send a message, it won't let me send the message if no recipients are specified (but there's an Fcc: specified)? No. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27133/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML Mail
begin s. keeling quotation: One of the things driving this is I'd like to find a way to easily report spam to spamcop, which means I have to pass an ID and password. This is possible with lynx -auth=uname:passwd. With w3m or links, it would be something like w3m http://uname:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Spamcop will give you an email address. You forward the mails there, and you can even make a Mutt alias to make it easy, so you just forward them to spamcop. Then they process it when the system load allows, and send you back an URL to complete the process. Much easier that trying to script a web post, and has the advantage that you don't have to re-post if their system load won't allow a submission at that moment. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27105/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML Mail
begin Patrick quotation: Actually, the custon is and SHOULD-BE: reply to list and ONLY CC to person if asked. We certainly do not want to receive posts twich without requesting such action. IMHO, it should be reply to list, and let the guy who refuses to join the list use the archives, that's what they're there for. -- Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile. msg27045/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation: These big text files open fine with vim. When I get home, I may have to fiddle with the From header to get things right. But, this may work. That'll be easy. One line of Perl or shell, most likely. -- Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile. msg27061/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Saving all attachments
begin Andre Bonhote quotation: I recently received a mail with about 20 attached files. The sender didn't want to tar it, so I got them attached one by one. IMHO, bounce it, and say give me a break, dude, use tar. -- Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile. msg26989/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Confusion on PGP parts
begin Magnus Therning quotation: So, my question: There seems to be quite some different ways to mark that a MIME part should be processed by pgp/gpg, multipart/(signed/encrypted), application/pgp, and some (e.g. kmail) relies on the body contents to find out. Which is the 'correct' way? The short answer; the way you're doing it now. The long answer can be found here: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3156.txt -- Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile. msg26907/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Outhouse on Mutt-Users?
begin quoting what Luke Ross said on Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:57:44PM +0100: As regards FQDN, if you'll pay for it! It's currently a dodgy NAT'd set-up. The Received headers show this one up ;-) So's mine, but I still have an FQDN. Gotta learn to use the tools to your advantage. -- Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile. msg26879/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:02:59PM -0800: taking the attitude of i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered. Look where it got the Internet. Sticking to documented RFCs, instead of the defacto standards of AOL and Compuserve and Fidonet, got us where we are today. It's not I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong. It's I'm one man, the RFCs are readable by everybody. Couple that with the fact that any mailer that is MIME-compliant can deal with PGP/MIME messages properly, even if they don't have PGP, and the choice seems clear. Ok, a lot of people are using an MUA that is *NOT* MIME-compliant; more people were using Compuserve and Fidonet when RFC 821 was written, to, and yet we stuck to our guns. Three years later, AOL came along, and we expected them to conform to RFCs if they wanted to talk to us. For a while, they tried to avoid it, but in the end, standards won out. RFC 1521 is 8.5 years old. People who choose not to follow it are on their own, by choice. That's their right. More power to 'em. Glad so many of 'em live in countries where they get to make stupid choices like that. That doesn't mean I have to violate standards to accomodate them. I violate the standard in exactly one place; a mailing list where the messages get nuked if they're MIME. I remain there because I like the list. I sign my messages inline because it follows the rules and annoys people, which may cause them to bitch to the moderator to allow MIME. Inline sigs, in my experience, annoy Outlook and Outlook Express users even more than PGP/MIME sigs. Outlook Express even has trouble with S/MIME, which Microsoft supports! Communication? I think I'm communicating more to the OE users by making them jump through hoops to read perfectly legitimate standard mail than I would by allowing Microsoft to drive my choices intead of RFCs. msg26748/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:44:22PM -0700: ok, i checked the archives and what i found was that people were talking about dale's p_c_t patch. that does not do what outlook is expecting w.r.t. attachments. It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it? msg26749/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:07:19AM -0500: I totally agree with you. _Communicate_, that is the key word. You signed that with S/MIME, with which OE also has a problem, agreeing with someone whose position was basically don't use PGP/MIME because Outlook and Outlook Express have a problem with it. msg26754/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:29:16AM -0700: it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook people. There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed. Could you answer yes on a response to the list, so we can see what you're sending out? Also, are you getting any errors when you start Mutt? msg26755/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500: I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments, but I think that's a known limitation; Shawn, can you send an attachment so that LookOut! can read the whole message smoothly? Yes. There is more than one $p_c_t, and he said he was using the dw patch, which is the one that works for Outlook. msg26756/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:58:21AM -0700: that is correct. p_c_t works fine for a simple email message without any attachments; however, as soon as you add an attachment i think mutt figures you're gonna send mime anyway so why not do the pgp that way too. Ah; didn't realize that was the problem you were describing. Yes, that's a limitation of the patch. That's what happens when you try to do something that isn't standardized; different people do it differently. msg26762/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:01:18AM -0700: not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an inline sig from mutt? or...? I meant an inline sig from Mutt, but it's moot now, since you gave some more information that made the problem clear. msg26763/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:07:52AM -0500: So you can send an attachment to an Outlook user and have the whole thing be signed and that user can happily read and verify both parts. No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to send an Outlook user a signed email and a patch, and he has to open both the email and the patch seperately, well, sometimes Microsoft's stupidity is painful for their users. He should be thankful he doesn't have to reboot. :-) msg26764/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:29:57AM -0700: manner. now, as we all know, msft isn't going to fix outlook so if i want to correspond securly with outlook users, i need to try and accomodate. PITA but there it is. Let me see if I get this straight: This hypothetical person is capable of installing a PGP plugin for Outlook, but isn't capable of using it to decrypt an attached file? Doesn't it insinuate itself into the right-click menu? msg26785/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: [TalkBiz] Who's deleting your email (fwd)
begin quoting what Michael Elkins said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 12:29:56PM -0800: That's pretty much what yahoo and hotmail do. They will place spam messages in a separate Spam folder so that the user can peruse through it in case something was blocked by accident. Except, in Yahoo's case, if the spammer pays them. msg26811/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: syntax highlighting in mutt
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:56:14PM -0500: Well, yeah; the same as if you use -R. But it's an editor that's simply in read-only mode, not a pager, and so it is a little clunkier to jump forward by whole pages (you can't just hit the space bar like you do with the rest of your mail messages). Oh ye of little faith: http://vim.sourceforge.net/tips/tip.php?tip_id=121 msg26817/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Feature Request
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:39:43AM +0200: feature request denied. macro index c change-folder! That breaks ? for list functionality. It would be better to assign it to another key: macro index I change-folder!\r Then get used to using I when you want it. msg2/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:06:14PM -0700: a mime anyway so why not just add a pgp/mime part? is it even possible to send an application/pgp message with an attachment? No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil. msg26729/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700: that this would be considered broken by today's standards. i guess if i want mutt to handle things the same way for those of my recipients who have to use outlook, i'm going to have to fix mutt or has anyone already done this? Yes. There's a patch, and it's already in the latest CVS versions. See the archives; it's been discussed several times in the last week, and at least once today. msg26732/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: echo $EUID
begin quoting what Mark J. Reed said on Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:35:25PM -0500: In cases where there was an even wider divergence between the BSD and System V commands (the ps(1) command being the most infamous example), you may find the BSD version in /usr/ucb (this is analogous to but reversed from the old SunOS case, where the System V versions were in /usr/5bin). Don't assume, however, that BSD style necessarily is 100% the same as GNU style. ps being the example, yet again; the w option doesn't show as much stuff as you can get with two ws on GNU ps. msg26577/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: echo $EUID
begin quoting what Mark J. Reed said on Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:18:57AM -0500: You can also put two 'w's on /usr/ucb/ps and get the full command line of every process, Nope; it has a cutoff after a certain number of characters, and there's nothing you can do about it. We ran into this problem when one of our developers wrote an application on Linux that did a ps and looked for a string, when the process in question was in an extremely long path and was run with the full path name. When he ported it to Solaris, it wouldn't work, even with /usr/ucb/ps, because of the cutoff. I suggested we install GNU ps, but nobody in management wanted to hear that. msg26582/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgp_create_traditional in 1.5.0
begin quoting what Thomas Roessler said on Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:59:32PM +0200: OpenPGP specifies application/pgp, but that breaks some MUAs that don't follow the OpenPGP RFC. Where does the OpenPGP RFC specify that? Sorry, I mispoke; it was another standard that specified that, and it has since been withdrawn, so I don't care enough to find out what it was. :-) msg26526/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message signing
begin quoting what Dave Smith said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100: You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing My two cents: Succumb. Inline sigs are annoying, and when you get a complaint, you can say well, if the list admin would allow standards-compliant sigs, you wouldn't see all that garbage in the messages. Complain to him, not me.. msg26465/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message signing
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:37:49AM -0700: just wondering why the non-standards-following option contains the word traditional. Because usage of PGP predates the establishment of standards. helpfull and it sort of relates to mutt...what is the accepted method for signing keys? i have heard everything from don't sign a key unless you got it on a floppy from the person and checked his/her id to if the fingerprint in the signature matches, signing is ok. If you're using GnuPG, see the lsign option. If you're signing the key because you trust it, but aren't willing to put your name on the line to vouch for it, local-sign (lsign) it. If you are willing to put your reputation on the line as proclaiming the validity of the key, sign it, and send the owner a signed copy. Don't do that unless you're sure it's legit; and email ain't sure. msg26468/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:58:17PM +0100: My mistake. Same here. Solaris doesn't like the '-s' switch for hostname. So I have to use 'hostname | cut ...' the get the short form. uname -n Works on both Linux and Solaris. msg26487/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-key probs
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:25:20PM +0100: ... but it doesn't help at all if people don't submit their key because of paranoia. What's most annoying are the folks who not only don't submit their key, but they also don't put it on their web page, or they don't put a link in their sigline. I know one person who has a demonstrated abundance of clue, but his sigline says finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my public key, but foo.bar doesn't accept finger... msg26493/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-key probs
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:02:23PM +0200: Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:58:PM -0500 ShRen McMahon wrote: ^ Is that a stylistic choice, or is your config broken? msg26501/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Irony getting in the way (Was: Re: ignore...)
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:20:32PM +0200: It may sound funny, but I really saw some Linux guys talking about what would be necessary to replace a kernel 'on the fly'. Not that it does make lots of sence or is extraordinary usefull, but to some of them uptime is all that matters... It'd be easier to just make /proc/uptime writable... (Yes, I'm aware that requires a code change, not just chmod. Every time I say this I get some idiot pointing this out to me, like I didn't know it.) msg26504/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David T-G said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:34:59PM -0500: ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled. msg26437/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Compressed patch problems
I applied the compressed folders patch, and it seemed to work. mutt -v shows: Mutt 1.3.28i (2002-03-13) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.4.9-31 (i586) [using ncurses 5.2] Compile options: -DOMAIN -DEBUG -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP +USE_IMAP -USE_GSS +USE_SSL -USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK -COMPRESSED +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET ++HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID +HAVE_GETADDRINFO ISPELL=/usr/bin/ispell SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/usr/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh -MIXMASTER To contact the developers, please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. To report a bug, please use the flea(1) utility. patch-1.3.28.rr.compressed.1 patch-1.3.28.dw.pgp-traditional.2 At the end of my config, I have: # gzip open-hook \\.gz$ gzip -cd %f %t close-hook \\.gz$ gzip -c %t %f append-hook \\.gz$ gzip -c %t %f # # bzip2 open-hook \\.bz2$ bzip2 -cd %f %t close-hook \\.bz2$ bzip2 -c %t %f append-hook \\.bz2$ bzip2 -c %t %f However, when I run mutt, I get: Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 282: open-hook: unknown command Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 283: close-hook: unknown command Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 284: append-hook: unknown command Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 287: open-hook: unknown command Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 288: close-hook: unknown command Error in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc, line 289: append-hook: unknown command source: errors in /home/smcmahon/.muttrc WTF? msg26438/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:54:39AM -0500: Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled. What standards are you talking about? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ There are *not* standards. There are plenty of standards; however, X-Mailer is not defined in one, as I clearly stated above. And even if they were, why to offer the possibility to have custom headers (my_hdr) is they are not to be controlled? Controlled = you can't change it, because an RFC defines it Uncontrolled = you can change it with my_hdr because no RFC defines it Hope this clears up the confusion. msg26442/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:05:22AM -0500: :- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so? sigh RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards. If you don't think so, stop using MIME, because it hasn't been adopted as a Standard yet, despite being a standard. College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida Don't make me drive over there and smack you; it's only about 20 minutes from Maitland. :-) msg26447/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg multible keyrings
begin quoting what Michael Tatge said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:43:12PM +0100: I'd like to have an extra keyring for this list. What problem are you trying to solve? msg26422/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
OT: OS definition thread
Just to throw a little fuel on the fire: Look in the Sun training catalog, at how they define the products themselves. Solaris 8 Operating Environment. Look at their web page: http://www.sun.com/solaris/ They call it the same thing. Then do a uname -a on a Solaris 8 system: SunOS chtsjs01 5.8 Generic_108528-05 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2 SunOS 5.8 is a component of the Solaris operating environment. Guess what OS stands for? SunOS 5.8 is the KERNEL, not the operating environment. If they were so inclined and appropriately licensed, Debian could do a distribution with the SunOS kernel, just like they do with the Hurd. Hurd is an OS kernel; Debian is a distribution. SunOS is an OS kernel; Solaris is an Operating Environment, I.E. a distribution. Linux is an OS kernel; Debian is a distribution, I.E. an operating environment. The parallels aren't a concidence, that's how you build a working system out of an OS. Things like ps and bash aren't part of the OS, even if you personally can't get any use out of the system without them. It is possible to build a system with nothing but a Linux OS and no filesystems, that accomplishes useful work. The other bits make it more useful, but are not required. This isn't my opinion, this is basic computer science. What are they teaching you kids in those schools these days? msg26378/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: OS definition thread
begin quoting what David Champion said on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:58:32PM -0600: No, not really. It's marketing. The definition of OS isn't marketing, it's Computer Science. It's been presented. It agrees with what I said. Get over it. msg26387/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Saving encrypted
begin quoting what Magnus Bodin said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 06:29:44AM +0100: Wouldn't it be a better solution to keep the whole sent-mail-folder encrypted to myself using the open/close-hook-thingies in the compressed-folders-patch? Probably be easier to put ~/Mail on a cfs filesystem. msg26367/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-key probs (Was: Re: Tag or delete...)
begin quoting what Martin Karlsson said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:36:32PM +0100: And I get the same as David. I use 'keyserver pgp.mit.edu'. But you should only have to upload to _one_ keyserver, right? There's more than one keyserver network. However, it's easier to ask somebody what server they use, and then figure out what network it's on, than to ask them what network it's on. They can get the answer to the one question from their options file; the other requires clue. Not saying anyone involved in this discussion doesn't have clue, just saying the general case. msg26368/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Keyserver Bug (was: Re: Tag or delete by date or age)
begin quoting what mike ledoux said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:27:37AM -0500: and hand out an invalid key. This is a known problem in the keyserver code. You can get a *valid* copy of my key from: http://www.volta.dyndns.org/~mwl/pgpkey.asc Yep, worked peachy. Thanks. As stated in the headers of every message I send. Headers are for information for machines. Information humans are expected to read belongs in the body. Many mailers don't show headers beyond the crucial ones. Mutt lets you configure that, I configure it that way. Of course, the signing key provided by the keyservers is still OK, as this problem only affects the encryption subkey(s), so you still should've been able to verify the signature. Couldn't get the sig automatically. But now that I have added it manually, all is well. msg26369/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Word and RTF attachments
begin quoting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:11:12AM -0800: always be right. But I have recieved some email where an RTF file has a '.doc' extension and an 'application/msword' mime type (probably because of the extension). Other than educating the other user, what is best way to handle this? I just want to dump the file Procmail filter that autobounces either. msg26371/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-key probs (Was: Re: Tag or delete...)
begin quoting what David T-G said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:14:23PM -0500: Are there just one or two, or are there a bunch, or does anyone really know? Do the servers in a given network synchronize with each other, or do even they have problems? I think there are a few, and some of them synchronize with others. Beyond that, I dunno. Generally they're clustered around a given piece of keyserver software, so you can probably track them somewhat that way. msg26372/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hiding the pgp sig completely from view?
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:53:12AM +0100: and i wonder whether there is a way to make mutt's reply command use the filtered text for quoting.. Ok, you want them to vanish for viewing, and vanish for quoting. Why is it that you don't use procmail to strip them? When is it that you want them to still be there? msg26373/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is http address attachet to header?
begin quoting what Patrik Modesto said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:24:42AM +0100: I create new message, then to the first empty line under header i write http://www.something.com and send this mail. This address is send as a part of email's header and body of this mail is empty. Why? Is this correct? The header is everything up to the first empty line. You're placing text immediately after the header, thus making it part of the header. So, that is correct behavior from the mailer, and incorrect behavior from the user. :-) msg26374/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 08:31:07PM +0100: Just logged into a solaris box. Having set my prompt to 'user@machine' it says that only root may run 'uname'. My response: 'exit'. Did you by any chance have a -S in that uname call? Because that's the only uname function that Solaris reserves for root, and rightly so. Unless the administrator of that box did something. msg26259/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what Matthew D. Fuller said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:49:32AM -0600:
I think he actually means 'hostname', not 'uname'; hostname, on any sane
system, displays the hostname when called with no args, and tries to set
it (requiring root at THAT point) when it has args. Solaris assumes that
you're always trying to set it, even to nothing.
What version of Solaris are you smoking?
sm364611-chtsjs01 hostname
chtsjs01
sm364611-chtsjs01 id
uid=43122(sm364611) gid=10(staff)
sm364611-chtsjs01 uname -a
SunOS chtsjs01 5.8 Generic_108528-05 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
Solaris' braindamage in a number of ways. For instance, on every OTHER
OS (including pre-Solaris-renaming SunOS, HP/UX 9, NeXT Mach), I can use
id -u to get the EUID. Solaris?
setenv EUID `id | sed s/[a-z\(\)\=]//g | awk '{print $1}'`
sm364611-chtsjs01 /usr/xpg4/bin/id -u
43122
(which is explained in man id)
msg26269/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:28:25AM -0500: Yeah; that was a very funny time. Too bad NT5 was renamed to Win2000 and announced just ONE DAY before the fantastic announcement of Solaris 7, the Operating System Rushed Out The Door In Time To Have A Higher Revision Number Than That Crap From Microsoft (but not in time to be complete, which is why 8 came out so soon after without even an attempt at 7.1). There were a *lot* of people at Sun who were pissed off! There won't be any .1 releases, because Solaris 8 is a marketing term for an environment that includes SunOS 5.8. Technically, the OS is SunOS 5.8. Sun marketting doesn't use that name, however, because they don't refer to the OS, only to the environment. Similarly for Solaris 7. That's why Solaris 9 is about to come out, with no 8.1. However, you are correct that 7 sucked. :-) Think of it as like a Linux distribution. Linux is the OS, RedHat or Debian is the distribution. Saying Solaris is like saying Debian, only slower and less free. :-) msg26271/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pgp_create_traditional in 1.5.0
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:55:08AM -0500: % has been changed so that application/pgp is no longer used (although % there's an x-mutt-action=pgp-sign flag in the content/type so that mutt % knows it's signed). those changes are from Thomas Roessler. I was unaware that it was broken. Can you (or someone) tell us whether this functionality is in 1.3.28? Only with a patch. Although I'm using a patch that causes the same behavior, IMHO, core Mutt shouldn't. It should be configurable whether you'll use application/pgp or not, because there's an RFC in question here. OpenPGP specifies application/pgp, but that breaks some MUAs that don't follow the OpenPGP RFC. The usual workaround is text/plain, but that needs to be user-configurable so that people who WANT to use OpenPGP (I don't, I either use text/plain or PGP/MIME) can. As I said, one of the patches for that just makes it text/plain always, and another makes it configurable. I'm using the former by choice. msg26272/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tag or delete by date or age
begin quoting what mike ledoux said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:29:20PM -0500: gpg: requesting key 57C3430B from wwwkeys.us.pgp.net ... gpg: key 57C3430B: invalid subkey binding gpg: key 57C3430B: no valid user IDs gpg: this may be caused by a missing self-signature Sign your key and re-submit it. msg26305/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tag or delete by date or age
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:40:46PM -0500: % Sign your key and re-submit it. Better check what you have, too. If my key wasn't signed, GPG wouldn't accept it. msg26307/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tag or delete by date or age
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:55:19PM -0500: No, no -- I meant that you had better check your copy of his key; as shown, it works fine for me. I don't have a copy of his key; GPG attempted to import it from the keyserver, but the one on the keyserver didn't have a self-signature, so it refused to import it. Hence, he should sign his key and resubmit it to the keyserver. msg26309/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what Ricardo SIGNES said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:40:44PM -0500: Except that Linux is only the kernel. Linux + GNU + some other files and configuration is the OS. That, plus some applications is the distribution. You're wrong. msg26331/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hiding the pgp sig completely from view?
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 03:37:11AM +0100: but - is there a way I can just *hide* the pgp sig *completely* from view? Do you still want to verify the sigs, or not? If not, you could strip them with procmail. msg26333/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailers with scripting/setup language
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:04:14AM +0100: Just wondering why 1524 is so important to you... You lost me. To the best of my knowledge, I have never discussed RFC1524 in this or any other mailing list, prior to this exchange. RFC1521 is important to me because 99.99% of MUAs on the Internet profess to comply with it, and because the most popular one doesn't actually do so, and thus it's users give me flack about their broken mailer's inability to read my messages. I've recently decided that it's insane for me to jump through hoops set by a company whose products I don't even purchase anymore, when I'm following 8.5-year-old standards. Ok, it's not a standard standard yet, but that argument is rendered moot when you stick a MIME header in your mails, which Outlook and Outlook Express do. That constitutes a stipulation to the standard as written. If they don't want to follow the standard, they can put X-MSMIME or something. What they're doing now is false advertising, and it's affecting me. I have to choose between spending a portion of my time responding to complaints, or ditching functionality. I choose to apportion that time so that as much of it as possible goes to talking to people with clue (like you), and as little as possible to people without clue who won't understand even if I wave the RFCs in their face. Karsten and I are working on something in that vein. msg26136/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailbox question
begin quoting what Simon White said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:55:29AM +: I didn't think this list could be posted to by non members. I am now going to have to find your address and copy-paste it up to the CC line. No, you don't have to. You choose to. Many people wouldn't. IMHO, it's incredibly rude to request a private response in a mailing list. Telling people please help me, and please jump through this hoop to do it is wrong. Unless his question was I can't seem to read messages in the Mutt list, but my non-list mail works fine. msg26145/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mail is not reaching destination
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:31:52PM +0100: like i said: mutt is *not* for everyone All users suck. mutt is for users who suck less. msg26149/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
begin quoting what Simon White said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:41:05PM +: Text based rules, but in Solaris you are stuck with CDE anyway, it's not worth shit without CDE. I've had luck in the past with GNOME, and evidently Sun doesn't totally disagree, since they're moving to GNOME as the standard environment. msg26168/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailbox question
begin quoting what Matthias Weiss said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:26:43PM +0100: What do I gain from this when I have 3 mailing list on one and another 4 lists on the other account? The ability to use mailing lists to help you solve problems without committing ettiquette errors that cause those who know the answers to your problems to flame you and then refuse to help you, for one thing. msg26182/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 02:59:37PM -0700: [0] This officially means that every single binary on my entire system is GPL'd ;) You don't have ps? What are you using instead? msg26222/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:29:08PM -0700: I don't use ps. Or any replacements. Ok. Do you use vim? msg26224/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:02:10PM -0800: /home/william/procps-2.0.7/ps ladd% head COPYING GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE You quoted it right there; it's not GPL, it's LGPL. I was yanking Rob's chain, because he's an evil bastard. :-) msg26230/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailers with scripting/setup language
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:12:41AM +0100: Not that I know, but it is quite dangerous to talk about Outlook in the context of mail clients. Oh, it is a mail client, it's just not an Internet mail client. At the very least, it doesn't read RFC1521-compliant mails as recommended in the standard. That's why I gave up trying to accommodate people who run it. The standard has been there for 8.5 years now, they can catch up or stop bitching. msg26062/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: setting content type in email header with mutt
begin quoting what Donna Koenig said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:39:39AM -0500: Situation is: We want to send out email that is html, but for those who only accept or access text email, we wnat them to be able to open the email also. OK, let me see if I get this right: You want to send out HTML email, and forge the headers so that it goes to people who have made a deliberate choice not to receive HTML email? Anybody who helps you do that is evil. Include a text/plain attachment; that's what the RFCs, common sense, and ethics would call for. msg26082/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mailers with scripting/setup language
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 07:58:17PM +0100: At the very least, it doesn't read RFC1521-compliant mails as recommended in the standard. Which has status informational only. Ok, first, wrong, it's standards-track, not informational. However, it *IS* the MIME standard, and they claim their emailer is a MIME emailer, so they can't get out of violating a standard by saying we support it and then it's not a standard when it's inconvenient. MIME-compliant means RFC1521-compliant, period. msg26084/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signing (newbie)
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:31:36PM -0700: Well, it sounds an awful lot like Jessy to me, which is a decidedly female name in Canada. I've never heard of a man named Jessy ;) Jesse Owens. Jesse Ventura. Insist on the same spelling? Ok. Jessy Dixon. Canadian race car driver Jessy Cohoon. msg26088/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:44:26PM -0700: Besides, I'm only doing it to Incredimail users. I mean, if they want to accost me with tons of useless X- headers, I shouldn't have to put up with them (the headers, not the people) :P If you want elegant: ignore * unignore date from: reply-to to cc subject list user-agent x-mailer I mean, who really cares about all that other crapola? Most people could go the extra bit and snatch user-agent and x-mailer out of there. And you can always hit h if you wanna see the crapola. msg26090/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:25:23PM -0700: I'd rather just rip off all the useless headers with an elegant 3-line procmail recipie than have to hide them all with 10 or 20 lines of ignore statements. You can have it both ways; use Procmail to prepend X-Nuke at the beginning of all the bad lines, then ignore X-Nuke. Then you can always see them if you want to. msg26092/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:05:45PM -0700: That brings us back to the first problem though: How do I ignore X-Nuke without ignoring the other X- headers? (without using the huge mess david posted). ignore received x-nuke msg26096/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:34:48PM -0700: ignore received x-nuke There are other headers I want to hide though. When I said have procmail prepend all the bad headers, I meant every header you'd like to hide. The only headers that I _want_ to see are done with an unignore in my .muttrc, immediately following an ignore *. x-nuke wouldn't work in that situation, and to prepend x-nuke to _everything_ that I want to hide is just out of the question. Too much work. What work? You do it one time, procmail does it after that. What I have now with formail working against incredimail _works_, that's the point. It's exactly what I want. Well, now, this is the Open Source world, where our motto is if it ain't broke, fix it. Didn't you get the memo? :-) msg26099/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Saving encrypted
begin quoting what Alan Batie said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:03:24PM -0800: first place. I discovered the fcc_clear option, which saves the message unencrypted and have been living with that, but what I *really* want is to save them encrypted to *me*. Mutt doesn't do that, but PGP does. In GnuPG, you'd add the following to your ~/.gnupg/options file: encrypt-to-self PGP should have something similar. If not, it sucks. :-) Also check the archives for a conversation YESTERDAY on this very subject, where I talk about the security tradeoffs in doing this. msg26109/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Encrypting my outgoing messages to myself for fcc
begin quoting what Robert Conde said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:20:46PM -0500: When I send a pgp encrypted message to someone, I can't read it in my fcc folder. I set the fcc_clear variable so that the FCC is stored unencrypted. I read in some FAQ that it's possible to configure Mutt Before you decide to do this, keep in mind the tradeoff you're making. If someone breaks your PGP secret keyring passphrase, or gets a court order to make you cough it up, they'll be able to read every encrypted message you've ever sent. For some people that's acceptable, for some it isn't. msg25965/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
ignore/unignore
Look at the man page; it doesn't say anything about the order of ignore or unignore statements. It just says unignore is a list of exceptions to the ignore statement(s). That's the precedence; unignores are exceptions, they take precedence over ignores no matter what. man muttrc msg25981/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signing (newbie)
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:09:42PM +0200: Ah well, I've decided not to use signed mails in mailing lists if there isn't any reason for me to do it. What matters, is, that PGP works with my Mutt - whole other thing is, if I use it... ;-) The same reasons for doing so in private mail apply to lists. The same reasons for not doing so in lists apply to private mail. What you do or don't do is your choice, but it's silly to bother turning on the capability at all if you aren't going to use it. msg25983/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signing (newbie)
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:26:53PM +0100: There are several things different between broadcasts and point-to-point connection, as you sure know. Yes. For instance, there are far more people who would be impacted by a forgery. There are also far more people who would benefit from exposure to cryptographic signatures. Also, there's a longer distribution channel, and thus more opportunities for forgery. So, you're right; there's MORE reason to sign in lists than in private mail. Thanks for the correction. msg25986/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
