Re: Using mixmaster
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:01:05AM +, Jeffery Small wrote: > John: > > Thanks you for all the great information. You're welcome. Crypto is interesting and very practical. But don't get too interested. Most of the mixmaster developers and several key cryptographers have all died mysterious deaths in the past 10 years. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Using mixmaster
John: Thanks you for all the great information. -- Jeff John Long writes: >On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:32:18PM -0800, Jeffery Small wrote: >> >> I just installed mixmaster on my Ubuntu 15.10 system and am trying it out. >> I have a question. The mutt manual says: >> >> "To use it [i.e., mixmaster], you'll have to obey certain restrictions. >> Most important, you cannot use the Cc and Bcc headers." >I think this must be a newer version of Mixmaster. I would question the >worthiness of that. See if you can find an older version. It compiles easily >on Linux. Look on sourceforge or elsewhere. Get a known good copy of PGP, >preferably 6.5.8 command line and/or 2.6 Disastry (2.6.3?). Disastry is 2.6 >with new hashes and ciphers to bring you up and in some cases past 6.5.8. >Mixmaster strips headers. If you are concerned send a few test posts to >yourself at various email addresses. You can test it by creating fake mix >nodes and a fake nodes file (forgot what it's called but it is the stats >file that Mixmaster uses to select remailers) with your own keys and use the >outfile option. The mail won't be sent. Then you can repeatedly decrypt it >with the keys for the fake nodes and see exactly what is being sent. >> >> When I look in my /etc/mixmaster/filter.conf >Seems to me this is a new thing. I played around with mixmaster back in the >day and I don't remember this. I could be wrong. >> So what are the restrictions on Cc: and Bcc: as it seems that mixmaster is >> prepared to use (or at least pass) them? Mostly, I'm just asking out of >> curiosity. >Normally Mixmaster will strip all headers that could leak info. If you want >to just post to a newsgroup use the newsgroups header. If you want to mail >anonymously I don't know why you couldn't use cc or bcc also. >If you want to communicate two way via Mixmaster you'll have to learn to >create a reply block. The new nyms at Steve Crook's site are ok if you think >about what you are doing and use Mixmaster to set it up and don't ever view >the website except over TOR or known good proxy.. I'm not sure how many old >school nym servers are still around but they are better if you know what >you're doing. Plenty of info around on this but you'll have to put the >pieces together. Not much has changed, the old info is still valid. >You'll need to get handy with command line gpg and pgp and you should also >keep in mind the 1024 mix pubkeys are no longer safe for serious use and >also if you are going to communicate securely you need end-to-end >encryption with big pubkeys. >/jl >-- >ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong > against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD > and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org > attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! > Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Using mixmaster
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:32:18PM -0800, Jeffery Small wrote: > > I just installed mixmaster on my Ubuntu 15.10 system and am trying it out. > I have a question. The mutt manual says: > > "To use it [i.e., mixmaster], you'll have to obey certain restrictions. > Most important, you cannot use the Cc and Bcc headers." I think this must be a newer version of Mixmaster. I would question the worthiness of that. See if you can find an older version. It compiles easily on Linux. Look on sourceforge or elsewhere. Get a known good copy of PGP, preferably 6.5.8 command line and/or 2.6 Disastry (2.6.3?). Disastry is 2.6 with new hashes and ciphers to bring you up and in some cases past 6.5.8. Mixmaster strips headers. If you are concerned send a few test posts to yourself at various email addresses. You can test it by creating fake mix nodes and a fake nodes file (forgot what it's called but it is the stats file that Mixmaster uses to select remailers) with your own keys and use the outfile option. The mail won't be sent. Then you can repeatedly decrypt it with the keys for the fake nodes and see exactly what is being sent. > > When I look in my /etc/mixmaster/filter.conf Seems to me this is a new thing. I played around with mixmaster back in the day and I don't remember this. I could be wrong. > So what are the restrictions on Cc: and Bcc: as it seems that mixmaster is > prepared to use (or at least pass) them? Mostly, I'm just asking out of > curiosity. Normally Mixmaster will strip all headers that could leak info. If you want to just post to a newsgroup use the newsgroups header. If you want to mail anonymously I don't know why you couldn't use cc or bcc also. If you want to communicate two way via Mixmaster you'll have to learn to create a reply block. The new nyms at Steve Crook's site are ok if you think about what you are doing and use Mixmaster to set it up and don't ever view the website except over TOR or known good proxy.. I'm not sure how many old school nym servers are still around but they are better if you know what you're doing. Plenty of info around on this but you'll have to put the pieces together. Not much has changed, the old info is still valid. You'll need to get handy with command line gpg and pgp and you should also keep in mind the 1024 mix pubkeys are no longer safe for serious use and also if you are going to communicate securely you need end-to-end encryption with big pubkeys. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Using mixmaster
I just installed mixmaster on my Ubuntu 15.10 system and am trying it out. I have a question. The mutt manual says: "To use it [i.e., mixmaster], you'll have to obey certain restrictions. Most important, you cannot use the Cc and Bcc headers." When I look in my /etc/mixmaster/filter.conf, it is set up with the following defaults: - ALLOW To Cc Bcc Subject In-Reply-To References Newsgroups Chain Mime-Version Content-Type Content-Disposition - So what are the restrictions on Cc: and Bcc: as it seems that mixmaster is prepared to use (or at least pass) them? Mostly, I'm just asking out of curiosity. Regards, -- Jeff
Re: Mixmaster
Hi, * sigi wrote: > I'm using mixmaster 3.0.0-2 with mutt 1.5.18-6+b1 on debian lenny and it > all works just fine. So the manual seems to be very outdated Updated now, thanks. Rocco pgpJfQ9J5Fo79.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mixmaster
Hi, On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:17:10PM +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > Just a small followup to my own post. I found the mixmaster changelog > and it appears that mutt support was added to the version 3 beta 25. > i.e. not long after the manual article reference was correct. The change > made was the introduction of the -T argument to mixmaster which mutt > uses. I recall that this was the problem. This change was in 2001-09-14. > It looks as if the manual has been wrong for nearly 8 years. I suspect > this is an indication of the degree of interest in mixmaster and mutt. > We need to know whether it still works and then update the manual. I'm using mixmaster 3.0.0-2 with mutt 1.5.18-6+b1 on debian lenny and it all works just fine. So the manual seems to be very outdated ;) Regards, sigi
Re: Mixmaster
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 01:45:24PM +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > I did quite a bit of work with mixmaster years ago and I think some of > the information in the manual was from me. I am no longer interested in > using mixmaster but I sort of keep an eye on it. Recently I have > returned to using mutt on linux after a spell using it on cygwin. I am > using the Ubuntu package prior to playing around with the latest > release. That Ubuntu package included mixmaster support. That got me > thinking and checking a few things. > > First, is anybody using it? It seems unlikely to me as if they were they > would be complaining about how out of date the manual is. The latest > manual I have to hand (1.5.18) has this to say:- > > "Mixmaster support in mutt is for mixmaster version 2.04 (beta 45 > appears to be the latest) and 2.03. It does not support earlier versions > or the later so-called version 3 betas, of which the latest appears to > be called 2.9b23." (I think I wrote that ages and ages ago). > > According to http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/ "The current 3.0.x > versions are stable and widely deployed". If the manual is still > correct, and I have no reason to suppose it is not, then mutt does not > work with the latest mixmaster 3.0.x although it probably works with > 2.0.4b46 which is still available via that link (click to go to download > centre). 2.0.4b46 is dated 2002. 3.0.x is dated March 2008. So at the > very least the manual needs updating to read something like:- > > "Mixmaster support in mutt is for mixmaster version 2.03 and 2.04 > (2.0.4b46 is still available from 2002). It does not support earlier > versions or the current version 3.0 (dated March 2008)." > > I hestitate to recommend this change because I do not know whether it is > correct. Maybe the mixmaster code in mutt has been changed. Can anyone > help out with better information? > > Note that I can reply to this in the next 20 hours or so, but will then > be off the internet for 4 days. I will reply on my return. I will not be > ignoring you. Just a small followup to my own post. I found the mixmaster changelog and it appears that mutt support was added to the version 3 beta 25. i.e. not long after the manual article reference was correct. The change made was the introduction of the -T argument to mixmaster which mutt uses. I recall that this was the problem. This change was in 2001-09-14. It looks as if the manual has been wrong for nearly 8 years. I suspect this is an indication of the degree of interest in mixmaster and mutt. We need to know whether it still works and then update the manual. Brian. > Brian. > > -- > "Rectify the anomaly". > The worst slogan used by an education trade union. > Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au -- Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Mixmaster
I did quite a bit of work with mixmaster years ago and I think some of the information in the manual was from me. I am no longer interested in using mixmaster but I sort of keep an eye on it. Recently I have returned to using mutt on linux after a spell using it on cygwin. I am using the Ubuntu package prior to playing around with the latest release. That Ubuntu package included mixmaster support. That got me thinking and checking a few things. First, is anybody using it? It seems unlikely to me as if they were they would be complaining about how out of date the manual is. The latest manual I have to hand (1.5.18) has this to say:- "Mixmaster support in mutt is for mixmaster version 2.04 (beta 45 appears to be the latest) and 2.03. It does not support earlier versions or the later so-called version 3 betas, of which the latest appears to be called 2.9b23." (I think I wrote that ages and ages ago). According to http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/ "The current 3.0.x versions are stable and widely deployed". If the manual is still correct, and I have no reason to suppose it is not, then mutt does not work with the latest mixmaster 3.0.x although it probably works with 2.0.4b46 which is still available via that link (click to go to download centre). 2.0.4b46 is dated 2002. 3.0.x is dated March 2008. So at the very least the manual needs updating to read something like:- "Mixmaster support in mutt is for mixmaster version 2.03 and 2.04 (2.0.4b46 is still available from 2002). It does not support earlier versions or the current version 3.0 (dated March 2008)." I hestitate to recommend this change because I do not know whether it is correct. Maybe the mixmaster code in mutt has been changed. Can anyone help out with better information? Note that I can reply to this in the next 20 hours or so, but will then be off the internet for 4 days. I will reply on my return. I will not be ignoring you. Brian. -- "Rectify the anomaly". The worst slogan used by an education trade union. Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Re: Mixmaster
* Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09.12.07 17:30]: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:51:44PM +0100, Francesco Ciattaglia wrote: > > * Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06.12.07 21:31]: > > > Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I > > > was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have > > > no intention of ever using it again. The support is for a very old > > > version of Mixmaster and not for the more recent version 3 betas. > > > > > > Should Mixmaster support be kept? It is unlikely to carry on working > > > even with the old mixmaster code (version 2.4 beta 46 from September > > > 2002), and that code may soon be not available. > > > > > > Brian. > > > > Last Mixmaster changes are dated 2007 september, see: > > http://svn.noreply.org/svn/mixmaster/trunk/Mix/HISTORY > > Yes, but none of those versions (2.9 & 3.0) are supported as far as I > know by thye current mutt code. About 7 years ago I looked at getting > mutt to support the 2.9 version 3 betas and decided it was a really big > job and beyond me. I have no intention of coming back to this. Are you > going to do it? Hi Brian, I know about incompatibility between last releases of Mixmaster and Mutt, I noticed that mixmaster is still alive only to remark that perhaps the code, the last version of it, should remain available. But, sorry, I'm not a programmer, not anymore :-) so for me it's impossible, even to think, to take on the hard work of updating your job. Mutt and Mixmaster Development teams should cooperate for interoperability. > > > I would like to use mixmaster support, yes. > > > > I wrote also a complete reference guide* for using mixmaster with Mutt, > > but it's kept in stand-by, because of incompatibility between > > recent versions of Mutt and Mixmaster. > > Why not put it on the wiki? It might encourage people to remove the > incompatability. I added a small change to update the manual to mutt.dev > yesterday. > The explanation I wrote is in italian, but the wiki speaks english. > > Brian. Ciao Ataualpa aka Francesco Ciattaglia. -- :/ La cosa più facile al mondo è seguire una tendenza, ma è la . /--\ / via più rapida per andare in fallimento. [Jim Rogers]
Re: Mixmaster
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:51:44PM +0100, Francesco Ciattaglia wrote: > * Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06.12.07 21:31]: > > Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I > > was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have > > no intention of ever using it again. The support is for a very old > > version of Mixmaster and not for the more recent version 3 betas. > > > > Should Mixmaster support be kept? It is unlikely to carry on working > > even with the old mixmaster code (version 2.4 beta 46 from September > > 2002), and that code may soon be not available. > > > > Brian. > * Ci? letto, correndo gioved? 06 dicembre 2007, alle 21 e 38 rispondo cos?: > > Last Mixmaster changes are dated 2007 september, see: > http://svn.noreply.org/svn/mixmaster/trunk/Mix/HISTORY Yes, but none of those versions (2.9 & 3.0) are supported as far as I know by thye current mutt code. About 7 years ago I looked at getting mutt to support the 2.9 version 3 betas and decided it was a really big job and beyond me. I have no intention of coming back to this. Are you going to do it? > I would like to use mixmaster support, yes. > > I wrote also a complete reference guide* for using mixmaster with Mutt, > but it's kept in stand-by, because of incompatibility between > recent versions of Mutt and Mixmaster. Why not put it on the wiki? It might encourage people to remove the incompatability. I added a small change to update the manual to mutt.dev yesterday. > It's an ideal argument for a flame war... anonimity: good or bad? Indeed and I do not want to go there. It is now not for me, so I am not going to touch the code. I have raised this, as I have said, just out of curiousity since I was active with mutt and mixmaster 7 years ago. > IMHO it's good in some situations. > > In the country where I live, others are the instruments to protect > yourself from abuse, crimes, ecc.. So I like Mixmaster as matter of > study, in some sense. > > In other countries, perhaps, anonimity could be matter of life. > > * in italian and as a part of "Il Nirvana con Mutt" (see website in sig). > > ciao Ataualpa aka Francesco Ciattaglia. > > -- > > - Linux is better: Open & Free! || www.ataualpa.altervista.org Brian. -- If a thing's worth doing, it is worth doing badly. -- G.K. Chesterton Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Re: Mixmaster
* Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06.12.07 21:31]: > Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I > was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have > no intention of ever using it again. The support is for a very old > version of Mixmaster and not for the more recent version 3 betas. > > Should Mixmaster support be kept? It is unlikely to carry on working > even with the old mixmaster code (version 2.4 beta 46 from September > 2002), and that code may soon be not available. > > Brian. * Ciò letto, correndo giovedì 06 dicembre 2007, alle 21 e 38 rispondo così: Last Mixmaster changes are dated 2007 september, see: http://svn.noreply.org/svn/mixmaster/trunk/Mix/HISTORY I would like to use mixmaster support, yes. I wrote also a complete reference guide* for using mixmaster with Mutt, but it's kept in stand-by, because of incompatibility between recent versions of Mutt and Mixmaster. It's an ideal argument for a flame war... anonimity: good or bad? IMHO it's good in some situations. In the country where I live, others are the instruments to protect yourself from abuse, crimes, ecc.. So I like Mixmaster as matter of study, in some sense. In other countries, perhaps, anonimity could be matter of life. * in italian and as a part of "Il Nirvana con Mutt" (see website in sig). ciao Ataualpa aka Francesco Ciattaglia. -- - Linux is better: Open & Free! || www.ataualpa.altervista.org
Mixmaster
Is anyone using the mixmaster support in mutt? I ask merely because I was involved in improving this about 7 years ago, and I'm curious. I have no intention of ever using it again. The support is for a very old version of Mixmaster and not for the more recent version 3 betas. Should Mixmaster support be kept? It is unlikely to carry on working even with the old mixmaster code (version 2.4 beta 46 from September 2002), and that code may soon be not available. Brian. -- "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief inspite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -- Richard Dawkins Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Re: Mutt mixmaster gpg pgp
I fear that code has gone untested and unmaintained for a long time. On 2007-02-05 17:49:55 +0100, gab bag wrote: > From: gab bag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: mutt-users@mutt.org > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:49:55 +0100 > Subject: Mutt mixmaster gpg pgp > X-Spam-Level: > > I'm using mutt with mixmaster and gnupg all fine apart from mixmaster .If i > send a mail not forwarded by any mix > chai the mail get delivered right with content , pgp signature and everithing > .If i send it through a mix chai it > gets delivered reporting only the pgp signature and no content,i'm not such a > gnupg experct so why is that ? Thank > you! If i'd send this mail through a mix chain you wouldn't have read > anything and is this actual mail correct ? > -- > http://tor.gabrix.ath.cx > > Key fingerprint = 7AD2 BCB4 B9BF 1303 FE84 8D3A 0737 6A53 58CA 4C6C > -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > mQGhBEXHIOARBAC/s2H3Nj8ewRy64x6KGQ9Q+QYx7zuQUGGrwdjW6wGRJwjzemnn > DEelpdmNwyMaw+e6Z0jR03Luw0j9IC7mp+R7LxU1FdvCRR77Bv9QP2vStv9txWN8 > 4H7I63H5gzZ7WAec0n2g2KPPlsQoCOMW699BECgFyQRPs5yDVK+MPIbqxwCg2soK > lN/c04cyDao0ShJzp2ooTyED/RU7b1mdGVCS0B/4X/w9qGP65QKt4429dhBn0ABH > 6s9ONLdRowGAeZliDJosX1d2+hg10dgDalgLCCeJPwROwlEvmDPhEgs9EoB7Kg08 > XUCUuT6zsc7reELLJ/y13J1iXZjzLbDaY/8lQaJFuqw3HqbG1z/d8e/Lo1Zhek00 > 9NzIA/YiIHX7gxF9UBtfLCAeTHUKQ8tEmGHGB3ajut2hPbupCOhup53aHoeeSBCG > aDb5sgKTbB2mNAl1mC9Rps9pCY+/cWWUw/MxQpf2EiBtVUSpY7orDsbjHNVuIulp > nlls2LKqAsdpG4jqv4+BgLsZ+SGFewQPD1uDT5xHcBKPOJWLtDFHYWJyaWVsZSBT > YWxhdGkgKERFRklOSVRJVkEpIDxyb290QGdhYnJpeC5hdGguY3g+iF4EExECAB4F > AkXHIOACGwMGCwkIBwMCAxUCAwMWAgECHgECF4AACgkQBzdqU1jKTGxjVQCgnpJw > HR6jMyvzoXQ7mRbg3RMZ+XAAnjVysSajazqIfnGUXlu11Wnl6EdvuQQNBEXHIoAQ > EAD9NUrsBiUdg59V/ol/sLNS2SyHgFWAxUV+H+RYp8yWI4Se6eEEXLmCmC4XHSlM > OdYdY5IEOSaPgIp9HnZPieaOSJCbZ61FbVYmljU2RIO3784riTdNj7kd4f8HBTo/ > 8oWw6+Cr0ADKcNvOG3aM6OAX0iYB0ngOsghjmG4hSJADpeDepeL9AkZBhy2CIP+f > Cbr7VfUNVOCBGP6JBpebO8k8B8/Vl3jG9k9FH4rNynenQ4TGmdQmGwMNtUyrtXrS > 9qOTgCfkgk8umvjik7UNUDwIeVHuETvb9uBkv6fsnx8QzfhApmYawZI2hQptYgFS > xCGs6k8bgv9x32E4FgKTK4kF9EchehSF+wOFdb5kzDX3zbpaSDHG6GXbOGbloasX > LA+2KDjVYHX4DnujLESuUYHHx8kzn6eyrRGjPZ5soeYXp3O9giLpCELD3s0WulJk > zRwohZqkqwd2+Zf2AaxAmx5/aCv2UyqdicKTcyI6joHqsaEc8jl4ZkCf09Ll7UOO > N8mtQYE4lDIHD8nFmG9zAI9a94SS2F9iE7OFmSbxUSoG3qcfuxrrUa0S/y6erJOT > iCIrM1kf44ZILwx3IYKlMonCh+r4MNqHbJni2jakc50rLy/GLm0id24Fys6dDLHC > OJbrzZxmaLM9PuwZUSw7fmcxXyZB7kX+99yQuyzOiL+1fwADBw/8CbK1M/vgRxPD > 2NDh0YNMz++hfqHKSONb2jaHmyAGoZHprB0Pf5SdlIXCTYjBxnsWi9UtpLBVE24G > EAKnrJTXXcK3b7G/5jQtN0geMhThCtkU45jJTLR2ZipoCqa5iAf8FmmCehnAW9c2 > NFaJ5BCdmWc16Jr++yNvyG9HFQBYcNk+i6xfhVtZROvAEMnPy9gjtjbXcvTqdm5E > KusaCK0XQZ1rwwcTTipBmtkbKnGBmd0l59HttOiXrOrSzn8StqEC2W8xEkIxrUHH > y9cRXijL7yfwVP2xXL/p2iA1IaaIvD9HK+ysSBVvZYXRBWb4HMiPpVm5qzGd3dq1 > nHC51Jd4r0s0nUqLiW6LUqQc3eGbNaPXT3NuP2lBVaULu8o/SCnaJXIDpvT2EDsQ > njHj4iFptdAczqMfb8Kd85eu+wGA0k6DbKiCnYYr0x09a4IfQCesaLSaWOSd8zCH > mZFSmiYBnWiikSjvKoCfSccO3RXr7e4EWb1RMu6o+p9KfSI6TGwVCoHdp0qDq868 > MU9V/OI9HSiEO5KgJIm1CbYc5Xx/5bTn/vlrhTY2MJl7Jyh1mgUbH7ZuvyKLJWI7 > 0cmgXoiZ0G1WWbQ5yLfs24M1lu7iILukkVMbFcSU+bOguqHM0a7nnJQR9eD0YuzA > yDw5h/7RA6GazbYSnSR/e6jVcovoivSISQQYEQIACQUCRccigAIbDAAKCRAHN2pT > WMpMbCenAJsG+zAZp5MzqGJ+hH8QtzMnKRs7FgCfYxpI1nO0gpVBGhfGnqDqrDPW > hZI= > =Fb07 > -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mutt mixmaster gpg pgp
I'm using mutt with mixmaster and gnupg all fine apart from mixmaster .If i send a mail not forwarded by any mix chai the mail get delivered right with content , pgp signature and everithing .If i send it through a mix chai it gets delivered reporting only the pgp signature and no content,i'm not such a gnupg experct so why is that ? Thank you! If i'd send this mail through a mix chain you wouldn't have read anything and is this actual mail correct ? -- http://tor.gabrix.ath.cx Key fingerprint = 7AD2 BCB4 B9BF 1303 FE84 8D3A 0737 6A53 58CA 4C6C -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) mQGhBEXHIOARBAC/s2H3Nj8ewRy64x6KGQ9Q+QYx7zuQUGGrwdjW6wGRJwjzemnn DEelpdmNwyMaw+e6Z0jR03Luw0j9IC7mp+R7LxU1FdvCRR77Bv9QP2vStv9txWN8 4H7I63H5gzZ7WAec0n2g2KPPlsQoCOMW699BECgFyQRPs5yDVK+MPIbqxwCg2soK lN/c04cyDao0ShJzp2ooTyED/RU7b1mdGVCS0B/4X/w9qGP65QKt4429dhBn0ABH 6s9ONLdRowGAeZliDJosX1d2+hg10dgDalgLCCeJPwROwlEvmDPhEgs9EoB7Kg08 XUCUuT6zsc7reELLJ/y13J1iXZjzLbDaY/8lQaJFuqw3HqbG1z/d8e/Lo1Zhek00 9NzIA/YiIHX7gxF9UBtfLCAeTHUKQ8tEmGHGB3ajut2hPbupCOhup53aHoeeSBCG aDb5sgKTbB2mNAl1mC9Rps9pCY+/cWWUw/MxQpf2EiBtVUSpY7orDsbjHNVuIulp nlls2LKqAsdpG4jqv4+BgLsZ+SGFewQPD1uDT5xHcBKPOJWLtDFHYWJyaWVsZSBT YWxhdGkgKERFRklOSVRJVkEpIDxyb290QGdhYnJpeC5hdGguY3g+iF4EExECAB4F AkXHIOACGwMGCwkIBwMCAxUCAwMWAgECHgECF4AACgkQBzdqU1jKTGxjVQCgnpJw HR6jMyvzoXQ7mRbg3RMZ+XAAnjVysSajazqIfnGUXlu11Wnl6EdvuQQNBEXHIoAQ EAD9NUrsBiUdg59V/ol/sLNS2SyHgFWAxUV+H+RYp8yWI4Se6eEEXLmCmC4XHSlM OdYdY5IEOSaPgIp9HnZPieaOSJCbZ61FbVYmljU2RIO3784riTdNj7kd4f8HBTo/ 8oWw6+Cr0ADKcNvOG3aM6OAX0iYB0ngOsghjmG4hSJADpeDepeL9AkZBhy2CIP+f Cbr7VfUNVOCBGP6JBpebO8k8B8/Vl3jG9k9FH4rNynenQ4TGmdQmGwMNtUyrtXrS 9qOTgCfkgk8umvjik7UNUDwIeVHuETvb9uBkv6fsnx8QzfhApmYawZI2hQptYgFS xCGs6k8bgv9x32E4FgKTK4kF9EchehSF+wOFdb5kzDX3zbpaSDHG6GXbOGbloasX LA+2KDjVYHX4DnujLESuUYHHx8kzn6eyrRGjPZ5soeYXp3O9giLpCELD3s0WulJk zRwohZqkqwd2+Zf2AaxAmx5/aCv2UyqdicKTcyI6joHqsaEc8jl4ZkCf09Ll7UOO N8mtQYE4lDIHD8nFmG9zAI9a94SS2F9iE7OFmSbxUSoG3qcfuxrrUa0S/y6erJOT iCIrM1kf44ZILwx3IYKlMonCh+r4MNqHbJni2jakc50rLy/GLm0id24Fys6dDLHC OJbrzZxmaLM9PuwZUSw7fmcxXyZB7kX+99yQuyzOiL+1fwADBw/8CbK1M/vgRxPD 2NDh0YNMz++hfqHKSONb2jaHmyAGoZHprB0Pf5SdlIXCTYjBxnsWi9UtpLBVE24G EAKnrJTXXcK3b7G/5jQtN0geMhThCtkU45jJTLR2ZipoCqa5iAf8FmmCehnAW9c2 NFaJ5BCdmWc16Jr++yNvyG9HFQBYcNk+i6xfhVtZROvAEMnPy9gjtjbXcvTqdm5E KusaCK0XQZ1rwwcTTipBmtkbKnGBmd0l59HttOiXrOrSzn8StqEC2W8xEkIxrUHH y9cRXijL7yfwVP2xXL/p2iA1IaaIvD9HK+ysSBVvZYXRBWb4HMiPpVm5qzGd3dq1 nHC51Jd4r0s0nUqLiW6LUqQc3eGbNaPXT3NuP2lBVaULu8o/SCnaJXIDpvT2EDsQ njHj4iFptdAczqMfb8Kd85eu+wGA0k6DbKiCnYYr0x09a4IfQCesaLSaWOSd8zCH mZFSmiYBnWiikSjvKoCfSccO3RXr7e4EWb1RMu6o+p9KfSI6TGwVCoHdp0qDq868 MU9V/OI9HSiEO5KgJIm1CbYc5Xx/5bTn/vlrhTY2MJl7Jyh1mgUbH7ZuvyKLJWI7 0cmgXoiZ0G1WWbQ5yLfs24M1lu7iILukkVMbFcSU+bOguqHM0a7nnJQR9eD0YuzA yDw5h/7RA6GazbYSnSR/e6jVcovoivSISQQYEQIACQUCRccigAIbDAAKCRAHN2pT WMpMbCenAJsG+zAZp5MzqGJ+hH8QtzMnKRs7FgCfYxpI1nO0gpVBGhfGnqDqrDPW hZI= =Fb07 -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
make install fails after ./config --with-mixmaster
Trying to build mutt 1.4 with mixmaster support fails under SuSE 8.0: ./configure --with-mixmaster [...] make install [...] compose.c: In function `mutt_compose_menu': compose.c:1205: `OP_COMPOSE_MIX' undeclared (first use in this function) compose.c:1205: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once compose.c:1205: for each function it appears in.) make[1]: *** [compose.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/mutt-1.4' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 It works without the --with-mixmaster option. Any suggestions? Thanks, -rex
Mutt support for mixmaster 2.9bxx
Why doesn't mutt support mixmaster 2.9bxx? The mutt manual says: Mixmaster support in mutt is for mixmaster version 2.04 (beta 45 appears to be the latest) and 2.03. It does not support earlier versions or the later so-called version 3 betas, of which the latest appears to be called 2.9b23. The latest release is 2.9b38 (10-Sep-2002), and the 2.9bxx series has been under development since 1998, with the first public release in 1999. Isn't it past time to support it? There is a patch for 2.9b23 at http://lacebark.ntu.edu.au/mutt.html and also a patch for mutt 1.3.10 to use mixmaster nyms, but will they work with 2.9b38 and mutt 1.4? Thanks, -rex
mixmaster
More out of curiosity than anything, does anyone know the status of mixmaster and it's ability to work within mutt? I've been using mutt on a Red Hat box, and just recently switched over to Debian. The default apt-get for mutt had mixmaster as a choice up with the headers, so I started trying to figure it out. After many unsuccessful attempts, I went back and read the mutt archives and found that getting it to work easily is very much version dependent. Have there been any new developments, either on the mutt or mixmaster side? I wish the default Debian installation of Mutt didn't have mixmaster compiled in, as I've already wasted too much time on this. :-) Kevin -- Kevin Coyner mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key: 1024D/8CE11941 msg30789/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Patch for mutt with Mixmaster 2.9beta32
On Sun, 06 Jan 2002, Ken Wahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought the issue with the newer versions of Mixmaster was that they > didn't accept the -T switch to view remailer lists? 2 nights ago I > spent hours on the mutt-users mail archive reading anything that had to > do with Mixmaster. Mix-2.9beta32 comes with the -T switch. > I did manage to find an old redhat rpm of mixmaster 2.04 that I was able > to install on RH 7.1 . It works by itself fine. It fails in mutt. > Mutt is able to bring up the Mix menu and let me choose remailers but > when I send I can see the shell output a lot of garbage ( "Error" > repeatedly ) and the message doesn't get sent. And yes I compiled mutt > with the --with-mixmaster=/usr/lib/mixmaster configuration switch. This is exactly the symptom I experienced. Try choosing only one remailer. If I remember correctly, that worked even before I patched mutt. > 2 questions: > > Is your patch the only patch that you know of that is needed to run > newer versions of mixmaster? I dare only speak about Mix-2.9beta32. It works perfectly after applying only this patch. > Do you think it will work with 1.3.25i? I just had a look at the 1.3.25i source. My patch won't apply. But it appears as if this problem is already fixed. If you're using 1.3.25i and Mixmaster still doesn't work, something else must be wrong. There's some new dependencies in 1.3.25i though, so I haven't tried compiling it myself yet. I might be wrong about this. > And finally, a big thanks for coding the patch. It seemed that interest > in Mixmaster had completely died out. No problem. Sorry I didn't send it to the list earlier so you had to waste all those hours reading the archives =) I personally use mutt because of its gpg and mix support, so there's still some interest -- Johan Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://johan.nforced.com/ GnuPG public key id: 0x6415B9F7 (1024 bits) Key fingerprint: CA6F 0720 B0D1 2FBA 74EB 348C 3110 6415 B9F7 msg22391/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Patch for mutt with Mixmaster 2.9beta32
Hi.
When I was setting up Mixmaster with mutt, I didn't find the
recommended version of Mixmaster, so I tried Mixmaster 2.9beta32. It
didn't quite work, but I figured out it was because Mixmaster now
wanted commas between the remailers in the command line.
I haven't bothered researching when this changed. And I suppose this
could be checked at compile time. But autoconf & co are not quite my
friends yet.
So, FWIW, attached is a patch that might be the right thing for you if
you have a newer version of Mixmaster and mutt is acting up.
--
Johan Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://johan.nforced.com/
GnuPG public key id: 0x6415B9F7 (1024 bits)
Key fingerprint: CA6F 0720 B0D1 2FBA 74EB 348C 3110 6415 B9F7
diff -u mutt-1.3.22.orig/remailer.c mutt-1.3.22/remailer.c
--- mutt-1.3.22.orig/remailer.c Thu Apr 26 15:15:20 2001
+++ mutt-1.3.22/remailer.c Sat Dec 8 18:27:09 2001
@@ -751,12 +751,13 @@
int i;
snprintf (cmd, sizeof (cmd), "cat %s | %s -m -l", tempfile, Mixmaster);
- for (; chain; chain = chain->next)
+ for (i=0; chain; chain = chain->next)
{
strfcpy (tmp, cmd, sizeof (tmp));
-snprintf (cmd, sizeof (cmd), "%s %s", tmp, (char *) chain->data);
+snprintf (cmd, sizeof (cmd), "%s%s%s", tmp, i++ ? "," : " ",
+ (char *) chain->data);
}
-
+
if (!option (OPTNOCURSES))
mutt_endwin (NULL);
msg22388/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: mixmaster
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:40:33AM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke rearranged the electrons to read: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Erwin Kaiser wrote: > > In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate > > this feature. How does it work? > > TIA Erwin > > Did you compile with mixmaster enabled? Look at "mutt -v" to see whether > you did. If not look at "./configure --help" and recompile. > > Which mixmaster do you have? If 2.9 see my patch notice of about 16 > hours ago. mutt currently only works with 2.0.4 as the very latest > manual states. Brian, thank you very much. Everything you proposed done - mixmaster2.9 working, path run - but after I chose the remailer chain in the compose menu I get "Error 126" - "Keine Berechtigung" in German, "no access" or something like that. I installed mixmaster as user "remailer" into /home/remailer/Mix. Do I have to change the permissions of this directory for mixmaster to work properly? TIA Erwin
Re: mixmaster
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:40:33AM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke rearranged the electrons to read: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Erwin Kaiser wrote: > > In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate > > this feature. How does it work? > > TIA Erwin > > Did you compile with mixmaster enabled? Look at "mutt -v" to see whether > you did. If not look at "./configure --help" and recompile. > > Which mixmaster do you have? If 2.9 see my patch notice of about 16 > hours ago. mutt currently only works with 2.0.4 as the very latest > manual states. Brian, thank you very much. Everything you proposed done - mixmaster2.9 working, path run - but after I chose the remailer chain in the compose menu I get "Error 126" - "Keine Berechtigung" in German, "no access" or something like that. I installed mixmaster as user "remailer" into /home/remailer/Mix. Do I have to change the permissions of this directory for mixmaster to work properly? TIA Erwin
Re: mixmaster
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:40:33AM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke rearranged the electrons to read: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Erwin Kaiser wrote: > > In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate > > this feature. How does it work? > > TIA Erwin > > Did you compile with mixmaster enabled? Look at "mutt -v" to see whether > you did. If not look at "./configure --help" and recompile. > > Which mixmaster do you have? If 2.9 see my patch notice of about 16 > hours ago. mutt currently only works with 2.0.4 as the very latest > manual states. Brian, thank you very much. Everything you proposed done - mixmaster2.9 working, path run - but after I chose the remailer chain in the compose menu I get "Error 126" - "Keine Berechtigung" in German, "no access" or something like that. I installed mixmaster as user "remailer" into /home/remailer/Mix. Do I have to change the permissions of this directory for mixmaster to work properly? TIA Erwin
Re: mixmaster
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 06:40:33AM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke rearranged the electrons to read: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Erwin Kaiser wrote: > > In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate > > this feature. How does it work? > > TIA Erwin > > Did you compile with mixmaster enabled? Look at "mutt -v" to see whether > you did. If not look at "./configure --help" and recompile. > > Which mixmaster do you have? If 2.9 see my patch notice of about 16 > hours ago. mutt currently only works with 2.0.4 as the very latest > manual states. First thank you for your hint! Second: I'm not an experienced code writer so excuse me: what exactly do I have to do with the patch I found on your website? I'm just making mix-29beta8. And _then_ I have to run the perl script you offer? And this will change the program main.c to work with mutt. Right? Erwin
Re: mixmaster
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:08:43PM +0100, Erwin Kaiser wrote: > In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate > this feature. How does it work? > TIA Erwin Did you compile with mixmaster enabled? Look at "mutt -v" to see whether you did. If not look at "./configure --help" and recompile. Which mixmaster do you have? If 2.9 see my patch notice of about 16 hours ago. mutt currently only works with 2.0.4 as the very latest manual states. Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chemistry, School of BECS, SITE, NT University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847. http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/ Get PGP2 Key:- http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/duke.key.html
mixmaster
In the manual I read about sending mail via mixmaster but I cannot activate this feature. How does it work? TIA Erwin
mixmaster support in mutt
As we have discussed here mixmaster support in mutt in for version 2.0.4 of mixmaster. The later mixmaster 2.9b23 does not have the -T flag needed to read the type2.list file. I have written a patch to mixmaster 2.9b23 that alters main.c to add the -T flag. This now works with mutt. Get it of the page:- http://lacebark.ntu.edu.au/mutt.html Improvements, suggestions, welcome. Enjoy. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chemistry, School of BECS, SITE, NT University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847. http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/ Get PGP2 Key:- http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/duke.key.html
Re: Mixmaster support in mutt
On Wed 09/20/00 at 08:40 PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My efforts in this direction however lead me to the following > reflections. The L-mix e-mail list has virtually no traffic. The various > newsgroups that could possibly have people interested in this topic have > little non-junk traffic. Only three people have expressed interest in > mixmaster support from the mutt lists. The mixmaster community seems to > be terribly small. There are some indications that interest in anonymous > mailers has declined over the last 4 - 5 years [...] I for one had no idea this was the case and am sorry and alarmed to hear it. The Mutt community should definitely continue to pursue integrating mutt with mixmaster and the anon-remailers -- though it's not for me to say whether this means mixmaster support should be part of mutt proper or as a stand-alone utility like urlview. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, too. And I certainly hope folks on this list *do* have something to say about it, because it seems to me that if GPG is worth supporting, so is mixmaster. If the FBI can't hear your phone conversations, they can still compel the phone company to turn over their records of your phone calls, showing who you called, when, and for how long. That's a lot of information. Using encryption, as we all know, prevents someone from seeing the actual content of your mail, but this same someone (or any other someone) can still see the e-mail equivalent of your phone company records unless you use remailers. Precisely because of that, using them is just as important as encrypting, but they never *will* be used until it becomes simple to do so. We need to make it easy for our parents, for aol users, and for clueless newbies everywhere to encrypt *and* remail. Otherwise we're pissing in the wind. We're a miniscule minority who may be able to communicate securely to each other, but to no one else. In the year 2000, remailing is a ghetto. Almost no one remails. And that means that the spooks have won. They see everything. -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // It is in no way obvious that the freedom to have a private conversation will survive. -- Whitfield Diffie PGP signature
Mixmaster support in mutt
I have been trying to explore various issues about the mixmaster support in mutt, but I am having difficulty in bringing these issues to a conclusion. Here however is a summary, followed by some questions. Mixmaster has versions 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and then a set of versions loosely called version 3.0 betas, but actually called 2.9bxx where xx is a version number. Mutt support is currently for versions 2.4 only. It may work for 2.3 but I think this versions delivers the remailer list using "mixmaster -T" differently from 2.4. I have not explored this further as the 2 versions are clearly similar and the latest - 2.4 - is likely to be the best. The earlier versions do not support the "-T" flag. The 3.0 betas also do not support the "-T" flag to delivery the list of remailers from the type2.list file. Thomas Roessler believes that the code could very easily be changed to read the type2.list file directly and that could work with both 2.4 and the 3.0 betas. I agree. However I am unable to make progress because I can not get 2.9beta23 to work on either of two machines I use - a RS6000 running AIX 2.3.5 and a Digital Alpha running what they now call Tru64 Unix. I have tried to get help on these problems - the behaviour is different on the two machines - but am still completely puzzled. My efforts in this direction however lead me to the following reflections. The L-mix e-mail list has virtually no traffic. The various newsgroups that could possibly have people interested in this topic have little non-junk traffic. Only three people have expressed interest in mixmaster support from the mutt lists. The mixmaster community seems to be terribly small. There are some indications that interest in anonymous mailers has declined over the last 4 - 5 years and also that perhaps what interest remains is dedicated to PCs where there some nice wrappers it seems for the Windows Mixmaster executable. So, is there really a demand for mixmaster support in mutt? Should we perhaps remove bloat by taking it out, rather than expanding it? Certainly I am beginning to wonder whether I need it or whether further work on it is warranted. Your views please. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] School of Biological, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, SITE, Northern Territory University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847 http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/school/compchem.html
Re: mixmaster support in mutt
On 2000-08-21 13:21:25 -0700, rex wrote: >> However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first >> does not support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and >> this also appears to not support the "-T" flag. So, what >> versions of mixmaster does mutt support? > Good question. Unfortunately I don't know. 2.04bsomething -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: mixmaster support in mutt
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:53PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not > support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to > not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt > support? Good question. Unfortunately I don't know. > I also failed to get either version of mixmaster to actually work > outside mutt. This is of course off topic for the mutt list, but I will > outline my problems and ask people to e-mail me rather than continue to > discuss these non-mutt problems on the list. Of course the mutt topics > above can be discussed on the list. There is an egroups Mixmaster list. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would welcome any help by e-mail to these mixmaster questions and any > discussion on the list about the future of mixmaster support in mutt. > Thomas says he is very busy and no longer uses mixmaster, so I guess it > is up to us if we want to progress it. It might be helpful to others to carry on any non-Mutt-related Mixmaster discussion on the above list rather than via private mail. Messages are archived there, and there is a search capability. I too, am interested in Mutt support for Mixmaster. Regards, -rex
mixmaster support in mutt
I have recently started to play with mixmaster but have had a mixed experience. I have been overseas and off the mutt lists for a while but I did look up the discussions on egroups and found that there had been a discussion about mixmaster support. It seems that mutt calls mixmaster with the "-T" flag which I think returns the remailers from type2.list file. Is this correct? However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt support? I also failed to get either version of mixmaster to actually work outside mutt. This is of course off topic for the mutt list, but I will outline my problems and ask people to e-mail me rather than continue to discuss these non-mutt problems on the list. Of course the mutt topics above can be discussed on the list. I used a RS6000 with AIX 2.3.5. On compile it finally got to the link stage for mix and said it could not link snprintf and vsnprintf. I took these from the mutt source as snprintf.c, moved this into the Src directory, compiled it, altered the makefile to add it to the link step and did a Make. This linked mix correctly and nothing else. Does anyone see any problem with this? I then tried using it to send a message. If I used it non-anonymously, it worked fine. Anonymously all seemed to go well until I got to "mail message". It then responded "Creating message ..." and hung. After some time it responds with "Killed" and aborts the process. Can anyone see where things may be going wrong? Version 2.0 failed to link on the RS6000 under AIX as it did not find flock. On an old DEC Alpha I failed to compile verison 2.9beta23 but I have not had time to really check this out. Version 2.0 compiled fine, but again I had trouble sending. I responded to all the requests including the remailer chain and then it responded:- Error: Public Key IDs do not match! Can't get public key! What is it trying to match? I'm lost. I would welcome any help by e-mail to these mixmaster questions and any discussion on the list about the future of mixmaster support in mutt. Thomas says he is very busy and no longer uses mixmaster, so I guess it is up to us if we want to progress it. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] School of Biological, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, SITE, Northern Territory University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847 http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/school/compchem.html
Re: Digression: mutt and mixmaster
Howard -- ...and then Howard Arons said... % On Jul 13, 2000, Christian R Molls and Ronny Haryanto wrote something % like: % > * Howard Arons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000713 20:48]: % > % > > "--with-mixmaster option"? I've read the INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, % > % > Try ./configure --help % % You two are right on the money; ./configure --help was what I was % looking for. Good! % % Now, why is there no mention of the --help argument in the README, % INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, I wonder? INSTALL says to tun 'configure' Probably just because that's a standard thing with configure, and it's so blindingly obvious to those accustomed to the software that the authors never thought to include a note about it. But that's why we have testers all over the world ;-) % and lists the most useful options, but a mention of --help would be a % good idea, IMHO. Certainly not a bad idea. % % Thanks for your help. % Howard Arons % -- % Powered by SuSE Linux 6.3 -- Kernel upgraded to 2.2.16 % Communications by Mutt 1.2.4i :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: Digression: mutt and mixmaster
On Jul 13, 2000, Christian R Molls and Ronny Haryanto wrote something like: > * Howard Arons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000713 20:48]: > > > Er, where in Mutt's documentation is there a reference to this > > "--with-mixmaster option"? I've read the INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, > > and I don't find it. What other config options have I missed? > > Try ./configure --help You two are right on the money; ./configure --help was what I was looking for. Now, why is there no mention of the --help argument in the README, INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, I wonder? INSTALL says to tun 'configure' and lists the most useful options, but a mention of --help would be a good idea, IMHO. Thanks for your help. Howard Arons -- Powered by SuSE Linux 6.3 -- Kernel upgraded to 2.2.16 Communications by Mutt 1.2.4i
Re: Digression: mutt and mixmaster
* Howard Arons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000713 20:48]: > Er, where in Mutt's documentation is there a reference to this > "--with-mixmaster option"? I've read the INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, > and I don't find it. What other config options have I missed? Try ./configure --help Christian -- christian molls student of laws univ of cologne
Re: Digression: mutt and mixmaster
On 13-Jul-2000, Howard Arons wrote: > On Jul 13, 2000, Mat wrote: > > Hi there, > > i'm trying to configure mutt with mixmaster, here is my situation: > > > > - installed mutt-1.2.4i compiled with --with-mixmaster option > > Er, where in Mutt's documentation is there a reference to this > "--with-mixmaster option"? I've read the INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, > and I don't find it. What other config options have I missed? You could try ./configure --help Ronny
Digression: mutt and mixmaster
On Jul 13, 2000, Mat wrote: > Hi there, > i'm trying to configure mutt with mixmaster, here is my situation: > > - installed mutt-1.2.4i compiled with --with-mixmaster option Er, where in Mutt's documentation is there a reference to this "--with-mixmaster option"? I've read the INSTALL or CONFIGURE files, and I don't find it. What other config options have I missed? Howard Arons -- Powered by SuSE Linux 6.3 -- Kernel upgraded to 2.2.16 Communications by Mutt 1.2.4i
Re: mutt and mixmaster
On 2000-07-13 12:20:34 +0200, Mat wrote: > PS I've also installed Mixmaster client version 3 > (latest) but got the same error, and by the way client > doesn't recognize -T option. Well, what you describe is an incompatible change against the 2.0 series of mixmaster, against which I developed mutt's mixmaster support. Maybe you complain to the current maintainer of mixmaster about this change, and point to mutt's interface. Adding a "-T" option should be trivial according to Ulf Möller who developed large parts of the 2.9 and 3.0 code base. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mutt and mixmaster
Hi there, i'm trying to configure mutt with mixmaster, here is my situation: - installed mutt-1.2.4i compiled with --with-mixmaster option - installed Mixmaster 2.9beta22 client under Linux. - properly configured muttrc with: set mix_entry_format="%4n %c %-16s %a" # Format of mixmaster list set mixmaster="/var/mixmaster/Mix/mix" # mixmaster path (the permission seems to be right) Whenever I send an email to someone using remailer options in the 'Remailer chain' section (where i suppose should choose which remailer use) i get the error: /var/mixmaster/Mix/mix: Invalid option -T -T isn't an option recognized by mixmaster client; the list of alive remailers shouldn't taken from type2.list rather than with -T option? What's wrong? Thanks in advance, Mat. PS I've also installed Mixmaster client version 3 (latest) but got the same error, and by the way client doesn't recognize -T option.
Re: Mutt/1.1.2i + mixmaster support: multi part messages
Mixmaster support is supposed to handle MIME correctly. Maybe you are experiencing problems with some remailer on the route? (You may also send me a test message which is supposed to exhibit the problem you believe to observe, I'll have a look at it then.) On 2000-01-18 19:54:28 +0200, Sotiris Vassilopoulos wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:54:28 +0200 > From: Sotiris Vassilopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Mutt/1.1.2i + mixmaster support: multi part messages > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i > Organization: BetaTech, Inc. - Athens, Hellas > > > Hi, > > I have just upgraded to 1.1.2i and find its mixmaster support really cool. > > I have one suggestion: > If the outgoing message consists of multiple parts, the user should be > allowed to choose (using a .muttrc variable perhaps) whether the > 'Mime-Version:' and 'Content-Type:' headers should be included in the > received message. If they are not included, the recipient's e-mail > client will not recognize the part boundaries and will not be able to > properly decode/save the attachments without her/his manual > intervention (assuming (s)he has the knowledge/tools to do it). > > Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this nice program. > > -- > Sotiris Vassilopoulos > BetaTech, Inc. - Athens, Hellas > -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Mutt/1.1.2i + mixmaster support: multi part messages
Hi, I have just upgraded to 1.1.2i and find its mixmaster support really cool. I have one suggestion: If the outgoing message consists of multiple parts, the user should be allowed to choose (using a .muttrc variable perhaps) whether the 'Mime-Version:' and 'Content-Type:' headers should be included in the received message. If they are not included, the recipient's e-mail client will not recognize the part boundaries and will not be able to properly decode/save the attachments without her/his manual intervention (assuming (s)he has the knowledge/tools to do it). Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this nice program. -- Sotiris Vassilopoulos BetaTech, Inc. - Athens, Hellas
