Re: New Mail Sent to different mailboxes
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:23:37AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: I understand procmail doesn't go with IMAP at this point. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Mutt to do it. It's still the MDAs job to deliver mail. As someone else mentioned, something should be written for IMAP to fill this hole. It shouldn't be added to the MUAs. And it's being done, though it's still in the design stages. See, for example, http://www.imc.org/draft-showalter-sieve-main -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: New Mail Sent to different mailboxes
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Nick Jennings wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:20:23AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: Nick Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 12 Jan 2000: I've read the online documentation at www.mutt.org and I cant find specific information on how to get new mail put in folders based on patterns. Mutt doesn't do this, it's not Mutt's job. You need to use a mail filtering tool such as procmail or maildrop. This is getting to, or is already a FAQ. Hmm. Anyone volunteer to write an entry about this for the FAQ list? :-) Argh! I despise procmail, yes its powerfull, and can do alot, but it's severly anoying. I think it _IS_ a mail clients job to do filtering, after all, it checks the /var/spool/mail/username for new mail and drops in in your inbox, if it drops it in the inbox, why not instead drop it in some other box and let you know? Um, but /var/(spool/)?mail/* -is- the inbox. Your mail client checks there for mail, your MDA drops mail there (it is your inbox, after all, and a delivery agent delivers it). Your client may move it to a 'working' mailbox after you've read an item, but the 'inbox' is still /var/(spool/)?mail/*. Thats why I started writing my own mail client, so the filtering would be easy to use, and built into the client, so you dont have to hassle with procmail. Since I started using Mutt, I stopped developing this mail client, but now I might start again, or maybe add this feature to mutt, is there a reason why this is something that is continuously not a feature in UNIX mail clients? yes procmail is powerfull, but its far too much of a hassle for just setting up a simple filter, something in the muttrc like this: Because it's not as effective? Quite a bit of my mail triggers external programs on receipt. I don't want that to wait until I get into work, login and start my mail client; I want it to work 24 hours a day as the mail is received. newmail-hook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) +mutt-users-mail would be simple enough and very easy to impliment. It could just search the headers for that pattern, not even the body (since that would slow it down more). Sure its not as powerfull as procmail can get, but its certainly better for simple filtering wich is what most people need to do anyways. More successful would be a gui-frontend to procmail, along the lines of the dotfile generator. -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: PGP/GPG
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 08:54:23PM +, Sean Rima wrote: Hi Bennett! On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Bennett Todd wrote: 1999-11-22-14:28:52 Sean Rima: Anyone know of a way to have a hook so that Mutt locads the necessary gpg.rc/pgp.rc depending on who the message is from. I use one .gnupg/options regardless of who the message is run, and always use gpg. I'm pretty sure I don't understand what you're asking for. Why not have one gpg (or pgp) config file for all correspondents? The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list who use PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG AFAIK. I have both GPG and PGP to get around this but would like to be able to set Mutt to choice the correct encryption tool depending on who the message is from Then you know wrong. GPG is quite content with PGP5 messages out of the box. For PGP2 (ie, RSA/IDEA), you can download and install the correct modules for GPG and it will be glad to work with those. (Though it will probably refuse to accept some keys that are not self-signed, since PGP2 allowed creation of such, but then such keys are not secure anyway, and people shouldn't trust them.) -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: PGP/GPG
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 04:04:50PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote: Sean Rima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list who use PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG AFAIK. From what I have read, GPG can be configured or built with external module support, so that it can read and use these RSA and IDEA based message formats. However, I haven't really found any good instructions for building such a version of GPG. There are some nice files in the "contrib" directory, but I don't know how to put them together to make it work. Most likely in /usr/lib/gnupg, or perhaps /usr/local/lib/gnupg. To ~/.gnupg/options, add: load-extension rsaref load-extension idea (or just plain rsa if that's legal where you are -- it's not in the US.) -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Cut and paste annoyance...
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 12:47:45PM -0400, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Hmmm Just noticed a "cut and paste" annoyance that I had never encounted with elm or with any other pager like more or less. If I'm viewing a message and copy part of the message using the mouse cut and paste in X-Windows, I find that when I paste it into something else, all of the lines are padded with spaces out to the width of the original window that Mutt was running in. I would guess that the Mutt pager is padding out the lines rather than clearing and terminating. Like I said, it's an annoyance. It's not a drop dead fatal type problem. It makes it a pain to subsequently edit the text that's been pasted in. I have a vague recollection that this may be a ncurses vs. slang issue. Could the people saying that this does and doesn't happen to them post the output of "mutt -v"? This is in general good practice when reporting a problem, Actually, as I recall, it was a bit trickier... it's an -old- version of ncurses being found. I had to hunt and destroy all the 1.9's hiding on my system in various guises to make it behave. In this case, an ldd from those with problems may be more useful. -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: Fwd: RE: looking for a mail client
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 11:38:32PM -0700, rex wrote: On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 10:42:36PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote: This is technically a bug in pine. If Mutt repeats this bug, we don't make any progress. People using pine should bug the developers to fix it if they care about it. Until then, if you care about making life easier for your pine-using friends, you can use macros to produce old style messages or find another work around. Bugs need to be worked around and fixed, not supported. Why do you call a convention that was in use worldwide for several years and perfectly functional, a bug? And what's wrong with backwards compatibility? IMO, Mutt is following an elitist path on this issue which is hurting Mutt and the PGP user community. Let's face it, PGP is far more important to freedom than Mutt, and intentionally making PGP harder to use is a serious mistake. If there is any bug involved, it's Mutt that is buggy for not having the option of being backwards compatible with a solidly established worldwide convention. You know what this whole debate reminds me of? Back in the days when MIME was new (1994 or so?) and the 'elite' would send MIME 'attachments' instead of uuencoded stuff like God meant, I was sure that mail was doomed and that this MIME stuff was for the birds. (Okay, I was using Elm back then and I still think metamail sucks.) In retrospect, I was way wrong: except for abominations like MS Word documents, MIME has worked out pretty well. The same can be said of PGP-MIME -- it works great with mail clients that support it (Eudora, for example). For those who can't handle it (like some of us could just barely handle MIME a few years ago), you may have to be nice and not do it as PGP-MIME, but just as you would have encouraged people that only had uudecode for binaries to upgrade their software, you should encourage those stuck without PGP-MIME to upgrade to something that supports it. It's not even a question of 'cutting edge' -- it's a question of standards. -- Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor. Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day. Netscum, Bane of Elves.
Re: mutt + gpg problems
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 04:44:04PM -0500, Thomas Marsh wrote: I'm getting the same thing. I wonder could it have anything to do with extra output from gpg on my system going to stderr: gpg: Warning: using insecure memory! That has to do with the fact that unless gpg is setuid root, it can't lock itself into memory and confidential data may end up on the swap partition. You can choose which risk you want: whether to make gpg suid root so that it can do that or whether it's bad to have another suid-root program. I haven't looked at the pgp code yet from mutt yet, but suppose it could be a quick hack if this is the case. Alternately, maybe someone has specific muttrc settings for getting gpg to play with mutt? My only weird stuff is: set pgp_sign_micalg="pgp-sha1" But that may be unneccesary. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: Unfriendly terminal behaviour
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 12:11:42PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: A string is "Hello", terminated with \0. If this string is printf()'d, it outputs "Hello". The terminal sees 5 characters, and therefore lets you select 5. Five are only sent over the tty as well. ncurses (and slang) applications are not doing this. I have Email messages which consist of lines such as (excluding double-quotes): "From: Stan Ryckman [EMAIL PROTECTED]" However, when this line is actually output to the terminal with mutt (slang, ncurses, whatever people want to claim it is), the output is actually the following: "From: Stan Ryckman [EMAIL PROTECTED]" It's not doing that for me. If I press my left mouse button down, and 'sweep' the 'From' line in the pager, as soon as I get to the end of the text, the line highlights (what ncurses does when it sees the invisible 'end of line'). People are blaming slang for this behaviour. Possibly the problem is with slang, and with ncurses as well. Make sure you're using the ncurses you think you are using. Many Linux machines have evil old ncurses on their machines. Use ldd to ensure you're using what you think you are using. I have witnessed the aforementioned problem using the following software: CRT SecureCRT Windows Telnet FreeBSD console Linux console Sun console It doesn't do it with a plain old 'xterm' and ncurses 4.2. No idea what the above termcaps do, though. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: Error with checking PGP sig
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 01:38:53AM +, Andreas Wessel wrote: And what about this? This signature applies to another message Opening file "/dev/null" type text. Signatures are usually ok - but still I always get the text above... What does that mean and how can I change that? The first line means that PGP5 is noisy as hell and that the message itself and the signature are in two pieces. (Normal with PGP-Mime, of course.) The second line means that PGP5 is noisy as hell and that it's not displaying the stuff that it's authenticating (as "pgpv filename" would). It's just the nature of PGP5 to behave that way. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: [OT] username+whatever@isp.org
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 03:26:06PM -0700, Russell Van Tassell wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 02:45:22PM -0700, rex wrote: It's fairly common for ISPs to put mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] into username's mailbox with the "+whatever" intact. This is a handy feature for filtering, seeing who's selling your email addy, etc. In effect, you've got as many mailboxes as you want with one account. I'm trying to get my ISP to support this, and need the (sort of) FAQ on it as a selling point. Anyone got a pointer to it? AFAIK, it's not made it into any RFCs. It's a default option in Sendmail, actually... some mentions of it occur on http://www.sendmail.org/. Eg. http://www.sendmail.org/m4/misc.html You can probably find many more references by searching for something like '"plussed users" near "sendmail"' or similiar... Except that it normally won't actually make it intact. (Sendmail strips recipient information from even the received lines if there is more than one recipient in order to protect privacy.) There are hacks to sendmail to add an X-Envelope-To header, though. See 754uqb$4ve$[EMAIL PROTECTED] for an example that works pretty well. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: GPG
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 11:16:53PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does gpg work in place of pgp for mutt use? Yes. (Though you need to build mutt to recognize it.) how good is gpg? On systems with /dev/random (ie, Linux and some of the BSDs), it's great. On lesser systems, it needs some work. is it stable? As stable as mutt. where do I find more info on it? http://www.gnupg.org/ -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: PGP signatures working correctly?
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:19:45AM +0100, Rejo wrote: Hello, I'm using Mutt with support for PGP. As i'm subbed to several lists i sometimes see a posting with a signature of my own. Mutt tells me there was a 'Good signature', but also says 'This signature applies to another message'. What does imply this last line? It's just PGP5 being weird. (The technical reason is because it does apply to another message: one 'message' is the body of the mail itself, the signature is a second 'message', or at least as PGP5 sees them.) Ignore it or use GPG. Also, when vieuwing the signature block myself, the first line after the opening '--- BEGIN...' says which version i'm using. The next line says 'MessageID: nnn' with nnn as a number which is not the same as the message id in the header (which is very logic as this message-id in the header gets added later by Sendmail). The number looks encrypted as well, as there are no @'s or domainname in it. That's normal, too. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: mutt and gpg ?
On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:43:47AM +0100, Georg Josef Uphoff wrote: Well, this might be a simple question, but how do I use mutt with GnuPG ? I'd recommend against this currently: gpg gives validity information which is computed according to an - erm - interesting model. Werner is apparently changing this currently. Before this change has been implemented, you should better use one of the "classical" PGP versions. But that's only an issue if you actually use the 'web of trust' stuff for validity. Many if not most PGP users don't actually use it and just trust that 0xDEADBEEF is their pal. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: mutt and gpg ?
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:43:47AM +0100, Georg Josef Uphoff wrote: Well, this might be a simple question, but how do I use mutt with GnuPG ? It should be mostly automatic. When you get to the 'send menu', type a 'p' and it will let you sign and/or encrypt your mail. (This is, of course, assuming that your copy of Mutt supports gpg.) -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Re: PGP v2 to PGP v5 upgrade
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 06:08:47PM +, SteelOnIce wrote: Hi again... I now also upgraded my pgp version and it doesn't really seem to work with mutt anymore... I set "set pgp_default_version=pgp5" in my muttrc but I still can't read signatures... all it says is: [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Jan 19 18:06:03 1999) --] sh: v: command not found [-- End of PGP output --] Sorry to ask - but why??? Because PGP5 is goofy. :set pgp_v5="/usr/local/bin/pgp" (The 'base' name of the PGP5 stuff.) Mutt then tacks on the 'v' (to verify), 's' (to sign), etc. Andy... On Tue, Jan 19, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote: Salvo -- Did you go through and make sure you get all of your commands changed over? That looks like it might be a flag... ??? What do you mean ??? -- No Signature :)) -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
