Re: auto reply to html-mails
On 20Jan2014 17:08, Will Yardley mutt-us...@veggiechinese.net wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:29:14PM -0600, David Champion wrote: * On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: Hello all, i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I don't like HTML mail either (for most constructions of HTML mail). However, as tired as you are of sending it, I'm sure others are tired of receiving it. So don't send it. Totally agree. set alternative_order text/plain text/enriched text/html BTW, text/enriched? Where does that lovely thing come from? My muttrc reads: message-hook . 'unalternative_order *; alternative_order text/plain text/html' # Apple Mail embeds attachments in the HTML part instead of outside the multipart/mixed message-hook '~h X-Mailer: Apple Mail ~X 1-' 'unalternative_order *; alternative_order text/html multipart/mixed text/plain' # senders who can't seem to master multipart/mixed, and send empty or useless text/plain sections message-hook '%f htmlers' 'unalternative_order *; alternative_order text/html text/plain' So: prefer plain text, but show (formatted via w3c automatically) the HTML part for Apple mail because it misassembles multipart-mixed messages, and for people in my htmlers group which is a list of authors that send HTML with useless text/plain portions: alias -group htmlers htmlers addresses... mailtained with a program from my address db. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au ..And in all of Babylonia there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, till the prophets bade the multitudes get a grip on themselves and shape up. - Woody Allen
Re: auto reply to html-mails
On 2014-01-23 14:48:34 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: BTW, text/enriched? Where does that lovely thing come from? It was defined in RFC 1896. Almost nobody uses it. pgpTs5PG0uWYc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: auto reply to html-mails
Hello, thank you for your answers - special thanks to David for the detailed considerations! Will Yardley wrote on 20.01.14: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:29:14PM -0600, David Champion wrote: * On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I don't like HTML mail either (for most constructions of HTML mail). However, as tired as you are of sending it, I'm sure others are tired of receiving it. So don't send it. It wasn't obvious to me that I seem to be motivated by a sense of mission (if that's a good translation of the german sendungsbewusstsein) trying to prove that I am right. configure some kind of text based browser to convert the rest (w3m or whatever), and get on with your life. HTML email is, these days, a battle that's already been lost. Sounds like a wise (slightly buddhist) approach... I do use w3m which works fine. But it made me angry that people force me to do extra keystrokes. aloha'e jan
Re: auto reply to html-mails
On 20Jan14 17:08 -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
set
alternative_order text/plain text/enriched text/html
In addition to that I also use
auto_view text/html
which automatically inlines html content into the pager, by using the
.mailcap routine
text/html; /usr/bin/w3m -I %{charset} -T text/html -dump; copiousoutput;
So, no further anoying keystrokes are needed.
Re: auto reply to html-mails
* Jan-Herbert Damm j...@free.de [01-20-14 15:43]: i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail or scripting. But i am curious how this could be approached. best would be to ask on the procmail list: List-Post: mailto:procm...@lists.rwth-aachen.de List-Subscribe: http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail, mailto:procmail-requ...@lists.rwth-aachen.de?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail, mailto:procmail-requ...@lists.rwth-aachen.de?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/pipermail/procmail List-Help: mailto:procmail-requ...@lists.rwth-aachen.de?subject=help List-Id: discussion of the procmail program procmail.lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: auto reply to html-mails
++ 20/01/14 21:40 +0100 - Jan-Herbert Damm: i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail or scripting. But i am curious how this could be approached. Procmail would suffice and definately for a rudimentary filter: :0 * ^Content-type: text/html * ! ^X-Loop: autoreply_because_html | (formail -rt \ -APrecedence: junk \ -AX-Loop: autoreply_because_html ; \ cat $HOME/body_of_autoreply.txt) | $SENDMAIL -t Or something along those lines. Untested. Procmail has lots of example in the procmailex manpage as well as on the internet. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail preferred . +31.6.39642738 . @rejozenger pgpsJs4E3Pe5M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: auto reply to html-mails
* On 20 Jan 2014, Jan-Herbert Damm wrote: Hello all, i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I don't like HTML mail either (for most constructions of HTML mail). However, as tired as you are of sending it, I'm sure others are tired of receiving it. So don't send it. If everyone autoreplied to me with the things they don't like about my email none of us would ever get work done, and vice versa. Philosophically: This doesn't scale, and its usefulness therefore depends on your assurance that you're better than other people and that they need your help to improve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle That said, here's what you need to think about to actually do this. It's well beyond a matter of mutt vs. procmail, and needs some serious thought about how email works, so I think it's actually somewhat in scope for this list. My setup for receiving mail is: fetchmail -- procmail -- spamassasin -- mutt and for sending: mutt -- msmtp -- ... A hint on how to proceed will help me. Any effort at this needs to be very precise, because an exact determination of whether you're receiving HTML mail is not script-simple. Not all mail containing HTML is either HTML mail or, really, badly done. If you do it wrong, you'll be sending autoreplies to people to complain about something that they might well be doing correctly. If you're going to auto-reply, you don't really need to worry about the presence of HTML. Your real goal should be to detect reliably whether the incoming message has a meaningful text part that your mail reader will see and use, or has incorrect alternative encodings. Things to be aware of/things that could go wrong: A message might have no MIME whatsoever -- that is, it might be implicitly and nominally plain text -- but it might still contain HTML. Do you choose to detect and respond to this? What if someone is writing plain text email about HTML? For MIME messages, you will need at least to extract each content-type header in each MIME part of the mail. You can perhaps make 95% reliable generalizations about a flat, linear list of content types that you find. For example: * if you see only text/html MIME parts, then the mail is most probably HTML (but see above; some nominally HTML mail in fact contains only plain text). * if you see multipart parts with only html text contents, likewise. * if you see multipart containers with a mix of plain and html contents, you should be cautious. The order of parts probably tells you whether the html or the plain is primary (first), but this could be misleading. For 100% certainty you need a full-depth parse tree such as you'd get with python's mime message parser, so that you know for sure which text parts belong to which container. A message containing both HTML and plain text parts might or might not be HTML mail. Multipart/alternative is the preferred MIME structure for expressing alternative views of identical content. It's good for sending mail that is HTML for those who can and wish to see HTML, while sending plain to others. A multipart/alternative message contains two or more sub-parts of different content-types. The user agent should be able to select whichever format its user prefers. If the user/agent does not express preference, the first part should be used. The first part should be the simplest available encoding -- that is, in most cases, plain text. This ensures that the default view is the most available/accessible one. So there are two ways that a multipart/alternative commonly fails: 1. they often (usually?) put the HTML part first, because that's how the sender would prefer for you to see the mail. This disrespects the rule that it should be the most accessible -- it favors the sender over the receiver. 2. they sometimes put in a plain part, and put it first, but its only content is to tell you that you should use an HTML-capable mail application. This breaks for onyone who expresses preference to text in their application settings. In light of #2, you also would ideally have some statistical heuristic that tells whether the plaintext version is obviously not a translation of the HTML version into plain text. If the HTML is 98K and the text is one line, it's probably not the same content. If the HTML is 12 lines and the text is two, who knows? You may need to look at the co-incidence of individual words to avoid making errors in automated analysis. It's non-trivial, and probably not worthwhile as a one-off procmail recipe. As a standalone program that vets the plaintext compatibility of a MIME or non-MIME message, which can be incorporated into a procmail rule, it would be nice to have on several fronts. Beyond this you should also be cognizant of the obligations of any autoreply mechanism to detect and prevent mail loops. Most of my HTML mail comes from automated retail systems and
Re: auto reply to html-mails
Rejo Zenger wrote: ++ 20/01/14 21:40 +0100 - Jan-Herbert Damm: i would like to send an automatic answer to html-mails sent to me (because i'm tired of writing back that i prefer plain-text). I am aware that this is hardly an issue of mutt, but rather procmail or scripting. But i am curious how this could be approached. Procmail would suffice and definately for a rudimentary filter: :0 * ^Content-type: text/html * ! ^X-Loop: autoreply_because_html | (formail -rt \ -APrecedence: junk \ -AX-Loop: autoreply_because_html ; \ cat $HOME/body_of_autoreply.txt) | $SENDMAIL -t Or something along those lines. Untested. Procmail has lots of example in the procmailex manpage as well as on the internet. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail preferred . +31.6.39642738 . @rejozenger this recipe will also fire on emails that contain a multipart/alternative part containing plain text and html alternatives and so would not be ideal as mutt will hapily display the text alternative. i expect that distinguishing such emails from ones that only contain html would take more effort in procmail-land. better ask a procmail expert. an alternative is to use procmail and textmail to automatically convert html emails into plain text on their way into your inbox. the following procmail recipe just translates html emails into plain text. :0 fw | textmail -WERPULIAVXBS it's probably wiser for the recipe to put a copy of the original email somewhere first. textmail is available from http://raf.org/textmail/ and it'll need perl and mktemp and lynx to be installed (and other things if you use its other features). cheers, raf
Re: Auto Reply?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:04:15AM -0500, Fred Dech wrote: hi. i'm going out of town for a week tomorrow. i've never done an auto-reply (i'm out of town till next year) type of thing. i checked some mutt FAQs and sifted through man mutt and man muttrc but didn't see anything alluding to this sort of thing. is this something i can do with Mutt in a relatively straightforward manner? This isn't mutt's field of expertise. Look at using something like procmail or maildrop, or even 'vacation.' Your local MTA probably hands off messages for local delivery to some MDA. Look at the files .forward or .qmail in your home directory, and/or consult your local wizards or M(D|T)A documentation. -- rjbs msg31216/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Auto Reply? - DONT!
* Fred Dech [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-25 16:40]: i'm going out of town for a week tomorrow. i've never done an auto-reply (i'm out of town till next year) type of thing. i checked some mutt FAQs and sifted through man mutt and man muttrc but didn't see anything alluding to this sort of thing. is this something i can do with Mutt in a relatively straightforward manner? no. but if any of your clients or filters will send an out of town message to any of the lists i'm on then i will have you drawn and quartered by your own towns people - and unsubscribed, too. my suggestion is to not reply at all. you will read your email when you get back. period. and it should be possible to read email from other places, too, via IMAP or POP. Sven
Re: Auto Reply?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:46:30PM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:04:15AM -0500, Fred Dech wrote: hi. i'm going out of town for a week tomorrow. i've never done an auto-reply (i'm out of town till next year) type of thing. i checked some mutt FAQs and sifted through man mutt and man muttrc but didn't see anything alluding to this sort of thing. is this something i can do with Mutt in a relatively straightforward manner? This isn't mutt's field of expertise. Look at using something like procmail or maildrop, or even 'vacation.' Your local MTA probably hands off messages for local delivery to some MDA. Look at the files .forward or .qmail in your home directory, and/or consult your local wizards or M(D|T)A documentation. -- rjbs ok. thanks, Ricardo. i'm running sendmail locally on my linux box. maybe i'll just shut down my computer tonight before i leave. that'll give an auto reply of sorts ;^) --fred
