Re: X-Mailer header
Thomas, et al -- ...and then Thomas Hurst said... % ... % is better because it saves a single character. I personally find % quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the % exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of: % % C=This is quoted text % C=Bla bla bla % C= % C=Cookie to whoever works out what this brain dead quote string is % C=supposed to represent. Piece of cake; just set your $display_filter to your Fortran compiler :-) :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26459/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: update encoding?
Sadiq -- ...and then Sadiq Al-Lawatia said... % % Hello Everyone, Hello! % % I have been using mutt for abour 4 years now. Very happy with it I % must say. Anyways, my system adminstrator had just updated mutt to % 1.3.24i (2001-11-29) and since then, everytime I send a message either I'm afraid I don't have an answer for your question, but I do have a suggestion for your admin: go back and re-update to 1.3.28 (latest development release and a 1.4 release candidate), since a security hole was fixed with 1.3.27. HTH HAND :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26460/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04- 1 01:03:29 -0700]: Alas! John Buttery spake thus: So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there doesn't seem to be one. It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word standard; it's more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the early days of USENET (maybe even earlier). Well, I try to follow convention, subject to the following fall-through logic (does this typify this group or what): 1) Actual draft standards, at least I think that's what they're called; whatever an RFC is called after Al Gore puts his Creator seal of approval on it or whatever and it actually becomes officially carved in stone 2) RFC specifications 3) Accepted norms 4) What I think is a good idea Of course, I try to temper #4 with as much expert advice as possible...hence my participation in this thread. Basically, absolutely the character is in there, even if no RFC says it is. What doesn't seem to be carved out yet is the presence or absence of the space following (or not following) it. So, I'm left with #4. The argument for _not_ having the space is increased space for deep quote nesting; the argument for having the space is increased parseability by editors and MUAs (and maybe even people, though that's a secondary concern for me really...I can count). So, based on that, I'm going to be changing my quote character back to . As always, no decision final, any additional comments/input welcome. -- Quick! Hide behind this pane of glass! You fool, you can see through it. Not if you close your eyes! msg26462/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
message signing
hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread msft viruses. now it is my understanding that when you sign an email you are actually sending a multipart page with the message being part 1 and the signature being part 2. if that is the case then it would seem to me that i cannot send signed emails to this list. is my understanding valid? is there another way to send signed emails? and now for the mutt tie-in, can i set mutt up to automatically not sign emails to particular address? i have read about the *-hooks but am still new to mutt. might someone give an example or two of how this might be done. thanks! -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26463/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message signing
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:09:38AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread msft viruses. now it is my understanding that when you sign an email you are actually sending a multipart page with the message being part 1 and the signature being part 2. if that is the case then it would seem to me that i cannot send signed emails to this list. is my understanding valid? Yes. is there another way to send signed emails? You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing messages that have been used in the past, and many discussions have taken place here, and patches have been posted to allow it. Check the archives if you want it. and now for the mutt tie-in, can i set mutt up to automatically not sign emails to particular address? i have read about the *-hooks but am still new to mutt. might someone give an example or two of how this might be done. thanks! 1. Complain to the list admin about their broken list. 2. Example (untested, made up from memory...): send-hook .set pgp_autosign send-hook [EMAIL PROTECTED] unset pgp_autosign -- David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bristol, England
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
Peter, et al -- ...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said... % % hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my Welcome! % emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept % emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread Yeah, I know of one of those, too. Are you by chance a Toshiba user? :-) % msft viruses. now it is my understanding that when you sign an email you % are actually sending a multipart page with the message being part 1 and % the signature being part 2. if that is the case then it would seem to me That's when it's done The Right Way Note that this is highly volatile flame fodder; see the archives for many virulent and voluminous discussions of How To Sign and Where To Sign and When To Sign. You've been warned :-) and somewhat informed. % that i cannot send signed emails to this list. is my understanding valid? % is there another way to send signed emails? and now for the mutt tie-in, mutt also supports $pgp_create_traditional to put the signature in the body of the message (in-line signing), which should work for this list and which is required for Outhouse users. % can i set mutt up to automatically not sign emails to particular address? You can, but for reasons mentioned in the various flame wars I don't recommend it. If you're going to sign at all, then why sometimes not sign and weaken the other half of your PGP presence? % i have read about the *-hooks but am still new to mutt. might someone give % an example or two of how this might be done. thanks! You probably want a send-hook, since you'd trigger this based on an address. First you should establish the default behavior: send-hook . set pgp_autosign Next, because more than one send-hook can apply to a message, you handle your exception case(s): send-hook lousylist unset pgp_autosign That's all there is to it. % % -- % Peter Abplanalp % Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % PGP: pgp.mit.edu HTH HAND :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26466/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message signing
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100, Dave Smith wrote: You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing messages that have been used in the past, and many discussions have taken place here, and patches have been posted to allow it. Check the archives if you want it. just wondering why the non-standards-following option contains the word traditional. btw - thanks for the advice on the send hooks, etc. also, i have tried asking this question in lists where it belongs but haven't gotten any satisfactory responses and since you all seem so 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. my dilema is that i have few friends (ok one) who use pgp but i would still like to build up some sort of web-of-trust. -- Peter Abplanalp President - Senior Developer PSA Consultants, Inc. Cell:(303) 810-9574 Fax: (303) 790-7504 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu Address: 10408 Carriage Club Drive Littleton, CO 80124 msg26467/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: message signing
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:42:19PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: If you're using GnuPG, see the lsign option. ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes gpg, i get the same message of good signature but no validity. that being the case, what is the purpose of lsigning a key? 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. as i asked above, why? what purpose does lsigning serve? 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. so you are saying it is a totally subjective judgement call? that means i could sign all the keys i have from this list and send everyone a copy back and that would be ok? somehow i think some people would become angry. especially due to the fact that my one pgp friend wouldn't sign my key unless i brought it to him on a floppy. he didn't check my id presumably because he felt confident he could still recognize me. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26469/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Tab to new messages, of another folder?
Hello, everyone, Tab key is used to go to next new message within a mailfolder. Can it jump to new messages of another mailfolder like pine does? I am sorry if I missed something in the manual. Thanks. Bo Peng Department of Statistics Rice University
OT: web of trust [was Re: message signing]
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:00:39PM -0500, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes gpg, i get the same message of good signature but no validity. that being the case, what is the purpose of lsigning a key? You might not care about the actual real-world identity of someone; you may only care to know that two messages from them did, in fact, come from the same person. In that case, you don't want to sign the key in a sharable way, because that certifies the identity associated with the key; but you can lsign it is an indication to yourself of your decision to treat the key that way, or just to shut the program up about the unsigned key. so you are saying it is a totally subjective judgement call? Yes. that means i could sign all the keys i have from this list and send everyone a copy back and that would be ok? Okay from a web-of-trust sense. Not so okay from a spam-avoidance sense. :) somehow i think some people would become angry. Most folks wouldn't get angry; they just wouldn't trust your signature. Your signature on a key doesn't do the owner of that key any good unless folks trust YOU to make the right decision when signing keys. If you make a habit of signing keys without verifying the ID, then your signature just becomes worthless. -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754 -- Remember the... the... uhh. msg26471/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: OS definition thread
Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:51:00:PM -0700 Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Well, every high school in north america would have you think that without a start button, a computer is completely useless and broken. I'm pretty sure that the school I went to still has those 286 Siemens machines with MS-DOS and Pascal. So, there's maybe some hope left (those machines slow enough to play some gorilla.bas ;-). This is for Germany only, but what to expect if Microsoft and Compaq (just to name two companies) are involved in a campaign to get every school an affordable connection to the internet? Cheers, Rocco. msg26473/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why is http address attachet to header?
Hi! I use Mutt 1.3.27i (2002-01-22) from Debian testing. 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? Patrik
Re: Optimizations?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:15:07PM +, Simon White wrote: So, I have PuTTY for SSH, will look into the options and check that out tonight. In the PuTTY configuration window, click on Connection-SSH in the treeview; there's an Enable compression checkbox, and it's off by default. Checking that should help a lot. -- Mark J. REED[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:03:38:AM -0500 Shawn McMahon wrote: 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. The 'uname' call works. You're right, it doesn't like the '-s' switch for hostname. I only have to find out, why 'uname' responds the error. Rocco msg26476/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:17:05:AM -0500 David T-G wrote:
Matthew, et al --
...and then Matthew D. Fuller said...
% 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
I agree so far, but ...
% it (requiring root at THAT point) when it has args. Solaris assumes that
% you're always trying to set it, even to nothing.
Really? I've never heard of that.
nfs5{43} uname -a
SunOS nfs5 5.8 Generic sun4u sparc
nfs5{44} id
uid=1236(dthorbur) gid=1012(u_it)
nfs5{45} hostname
nfs5
nfs5{46}
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.
Rocco
msg26477/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Changing Groups in Mutt/NNTP
Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:25:18:AM + Sean Rima wrote: Sorry should have said but yes it is the vvv patch, so thanks a million :) No problem. Pressing '?' for help every now and then will list which key is currently available with description. Rocco msg26478/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Command expansion
Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:18:15:AM -0500 David T-G wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % The following doesn't work, too: % % set record='`date +/tmp/%H%M%S`' Oh, I get it -- $record is only parsed once, so it will only be set once, no matter what. Exactly. % What I thought of is that 'record' becomes a special type of 'path' % allowing pipes. Appending '|' could cause mutt just to remember that % string (instead of its expanded value) and evaluate it short before % usuage. Well, yeah, but that would require completely rewriting the code that handles $record. Yes and no. It would not only affect $record. I try it onces more. What I thought of is functionality which would lead up this: *all* variables of type 'path' are handled different. If there's a pipe appended, mutt internaly stores the complete string at startup and doesn't expand anything. Before usage, that pipe has to be recognized so that not the string is used but the output of the command specified. After that assignment, the variable still has the same value as before because it would have to be left untouched. So, as I said, a general solution. Sounds nice, at least to me. But there're several cases or situations where this behaviour could cause real trouble. For example, if someone - as a mistake - appends a pipe to the $sendmail variable... what would happen? Right, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because the command (the real sendmail) is executed and expected to return some output telling mutt where the binary is located. And you'll wait for that output till next reboot. As Sven said, mutt is not for everyone. So this, if implemented, could be left with just a warning in the manual. To avoid such mistakes, the 'path' type could be split up into two types. One allowing pipes (like $record, $signature,...) and one not allowing pipes *and* producing a parse error upon startup (for $sendmail, $inews, ...). I'm sure that I want pipes to be usable more generally. What I'm not sure about is wether trying to detect misconfiguration or not. That would probably be welcomed, after all of the talk of making fcc-save-hook able to save to a pipe so that a script can save multiple copies of the message, but nobody has stepped up to *that* yet and so I don't see it happening for this... Well, that's another different topic. Really nobody done this before? % I'll have a look at the archive. But using hooks is not what I want. % Just setting the variable. That gives me an idea, though. You could send-hook . 'set record=`date +/tmp/$H$M$S`' and then it *would* be repeatedly evaluated but not until the hook is executed, and that should get you what you want. Haven't tried it, but it should do, yes. But it looks like hack. If you go upon such a level on a regular basis, saving multiple copies of outgoing messages is more than trivial, too. Just write a script saving to locations you want and finally handing the mail over to $sendmail. Done. % ... and I thought that some more generall solutions would be % interesting. Interesting, to be sure, but someone has to want to code it :-) Sure. It would be done already if I had the skills. Mutt would even suck much less, if I had the skills. ;-) Rocco msg26479/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:49:32:AM -0600 Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:08:50AM + I heard the voice of
Dave Smith, and lo! it spake thus:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 08:31:07PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just logged into a solaris box. Having set my prompt to 'user@machine'
it says that only root may run 'uname'. My response: 'exit'.
That could just be a local configuration issue.
tabby(21)% uname -a
SunOS tabby 5.8 Generic_108528-13 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
I think he actually means 'hostname', not 'uname';
Verified this one: hostname. I used to use 'hostname -s' rather than
something like 'hostname | cut ...' to get the short name. If I - on
Solaris - run 'hostname -s' it tells me: 'uname: not super user'. So I
use a switch in my .profile to find wether this is Solaris or not.
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.
Solaris.
Personally, I use tcsh, so I have a shell builtin for setting it in my
prompt. However, in my uber-.tcshrc, I end up having to work around
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 $1}'`
Looks nice. ;-)
Rocco
msg26480/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:12:56:AM -0500 David T-G wrote: Eh? Who the heck set up your box? An administrator, maybe. ;-) Rocco msg26481/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
subscribing imap folders doesn't work
I can't subscribe imap folders. It's no problem to unsubscribe but I can't subscribe. Does anyone has a hint for me? Manuel -- Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved. -Helen Keller
Re: Irony getting in the way (Was: Re: ignore...)
Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:07:07:PM -0700 Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Alas! Martin Karlsson spake thus: Rob, your X-Uptime header shows even the no. of hundreds odf seconds; I think Rocco ironically suggests that it perhaps could be more specific - meaning that he thinks it is _very_ specific. I see... ;) At least it was the smiley after your question which confused me. As I read you use a linux from scratch. Are you sure it looks professional advertising uptimes of 1 or 2 hours? ;-) Rocco msg26483/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg-key probs
Hi, On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:14:23:PM -0500 David T-G wrote: ...and then Shawn McMahon said... % There's more than one keyserver network. So it seems. 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? There are a few, I guess. It would not make sence to not share the key database as much as possible. Imagine, a keyserver with a non-shared database is suddenly not available anymore. ... but it doesn't help at all if people don't submit their key because of paranoia. Rocco msg26484/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
smime_keys
Hey, I finally had some time to left to set up S/MIME with Mutt 1.5.0 on Debian and FreeBSD. According to the documentation, I initially try to run 'smime_keys init'. The sample smime.rc is sourced in .muttrc, OpenSSL is installed on both systems. In fact, on FreeBSD (and this is extraordinary strange) it refuses to run since it the scrip at least requires version 1.5.0. I have 1.5.0i. On Debian it suddenly dies at line 236 without any verbosity. So I looked at the source of the script and set everything up by hand so that it now seems to work. Anybody else having had such trouble? Cheers, Rocco. msg26485/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:17:46:PM -0500 David Collantes wrote: [ Mutt doesn't set X-Mailer ] This is just a kind of advertising. If you'd like you can create one with a simple my_hdr command like this one: folder . my_hdr X-Mailer: Mutt/$version How to grep the version number out of 'mutt -v' you'll have to figure out yourself. Cheers, Rocco. msg26486/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: M$ 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: M$ Outhouse E. for UNIX
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:51:34AM -0500, Rocco Rutte wrote: 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. Yes. And Solaris is sane in this fashion. Solaris assumes that you're always trying to set it, even to nothing. Not true. Type 'hostname' and you get the output, no root required. You said it yourself - it only wants you to be root when you supply an argument. And '-s' IS AN ARGUMENT. There is nothing automatic or magical about switches/options to commands on UNIX; if you are writing a program and want it to accept options, you have to write it to do so explicitly - although there are libraries that make this easy. On traditional UNIX systems, hostname(1) has no options. So it sees it has an argument (-s) and tries to set the hostname to that. Since you're not root, it fails. You are simply accustomed to the extended version of the hostname command, standard in Linux distributions, which has been written to recognize a set of option switches. -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754 -- Worth seeing? Yes, but not worth going to see. msg26488/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is http address attachet to header?
Patrik Modesto wrote: 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? Are you using 'set edit_headers' ? If so, you need to have a blank line after the header to denote where the header ends. Mutt sees your URL as a valid header line, http: //www.something.com and thus happily accepts it (a field called http:)
Re: message signing
Something isn't configured properly in your GnuPG. It sounds like it doesn't trust YOUR key. entirely possible but i think everything is set up correctly. here is what i get when i run a check on my key: pub 1024D/7D224574 created: 2002-01-09 expires: never trust: -/u sub 1024g/CB44AB9B created: 2002-01-09 expires: never (1). Peter T. Abplanalp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Command check uid Peter T. Abplanalp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sig! 7D224574 2002-01-09 [self-signature] sig! 09468BD5 2002-02-06 Peter T. Laird [EMAIL PROTECTED] here is what i get when i run a check on your key: pub 1024D/18A4D476 created: 2000-05-03 expires: never trust: -/q sub 1024g/F43253AD created: 2000-05-03 expires: never (1). Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Command check uid Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sig! 18A4D476 2000-05-03 [self-signature] sig! 7D224574 2002-04-01 Peter T. Abplanalp [EMAIL PROTECTED] which leads me to believe that everything is as it should be. finally, here is the output of gpg when i view an email signed by (presumably) you: gpg: Signature made Mon Apr 1 11:53:14 2002 MST using DSA key ID 18A4D476 gpg: Good signature from Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. gpg: Fingerprint: 0488 2065 CC6B 20CB 31E5 6529 FD1D F6BB 18A4 D476 which is the same message i get from gpg on a signed email for which i did not sign the key. so what is up with that? after lsigning the key, i figured i would lose the warning because i had signed the key with my own. That's good judgement. right. that is what i thought. so the question remains, how does one develop a web of trust using good judgement while probably being unable to verify anyone's identity outside of long distance (email, phone, fax, etc) means? -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26490/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Command expansion
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-27 16:35:14 +0100]: Hi, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:18:15:AM -0500 David T-G wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... I try it onces more. What I thought of is functionality which would lead up this: *all* variables of type 'path' are handled different. If there's a pipe appended, mutt internaly stores the complete string at startup and doesn't expand anything. Before usage, that pipe has to be recognized so that not the string is used but the output of the command specified. After that assignment, the variable still has the same value as before because it would have to be left untouched. So, as I said, a general solution. Sounds nice, at least to me. But $signature is of type path. You can use a pipe there right now, but the behaviour is different. Mutt uses the output as the signature not as a path to a file to load. The change you want would break this behaviour or at least bring in some inconsistencies. Nicolas
Re: Tab to new messages, of another folder?
Bo -- Please don't simply reply to any random message and start a new thread. Start a new thread with a fresh message instead! ...and then Bo Peng said... % % Hello, everyone, Hi! % % Tab key is used to go to next new message within a mailfolder. Can it jump % to new messages of another mailfolder like pine does? I am sorry if I missed % something in the manual. mutt won't go to next-new in another folder, but once you tell it (through the mailboxes command) what folders to watch, you can go to the next folder with new messages when you're in the browser. % % Thanks. % Bo Peng % Department of Statistics % Rice University HTH HAND :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26492/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: Command expansion
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:13:16:PM -0500 David T-G wrote: Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... By the way, I find myself wondering how you tell mutt to not quote blank lines as you have here. Or do you have an editor startup command that changes all '^ $' to '' for you? The answer is: Vim. I'm using it for quite a few weeks and I tend to really love it. It does also repair broken subjects, removes the last '(was: ...)' in a subject line... Quite comfortable. % Haven't tried it, but it should do, yes. But it looks like hack. If you So what if it looks like a hack? If you look at it that way, most scripts and have of everyone's muttrc file will probably be hacks; after all, a hack -- particularly in this sense -- is putting things together in new and interesting ways. Yes, but there are ugly and more elegant hacks. The more elegant ones do not look so helpless. Cheers, Rocco. msg26496/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Command expansion
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:13:16:PM -0500 David T-G wrote: % Rocco, et al -- % ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % By the way, I find myself wondering how you tell mutt to not quote blank % lines as you have here. Or do you have an editor startup command that % changes all '^ $' to '' for you? % % The answer is: Vim. I'm using it for quite a few weeks and I tend to Ah. That makes sense. I just couldn't figure out how you would have managed to break mutt like that :-) % really love it. It does also repair broken subjects, removes the last % '(was: ...)' in a subject line... Quite comfortable. Yes, vim is great! % % % Haven't tried it, but it should do, yes. But it looks like hack. If you % % So what if it looks like a hack? If you look at it that way, most % scripts and have of everyone's muttrc file will probably be hacks; after % all, a hack -- particularly in this sense -- is putting things together % in new and interesting ways. % % Yes, but there are ugly and more elegant hacks. The more elegant ones do % not look so helpless. Hmmm... Well, I'll give you that, but I don't think that changing the codebase is the elegant solution, either ;-) % % Cheers, Rocco. HAND :-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26497/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Command expansion
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:38:46:PM +0200 Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-27 16:35:14 +0100]: [...] So, as I said, a general solution. Sounds nice, at least to me. But $signature is of type path. You can use a pipe there right now, but the behaviour is different. Mutt uses the output as the signature not as a path to a file to load. I know. And in all other cases except $signature it is a path to a file and not that the output. And I thought of changing this behaviour. The change you want would break this behaviour or at least bring in some inconsistencies. If a change is usefull I don't mind completely breaking other things up. If just every configuration variable of type 'path' with a pipe as the last character would make mutt to use the output of the command should leave most configurations working. Cheers, Rocco. msg26498/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Irony getting in the way (Was: Re: ignore...)
Rocco Rutte wrote: At least it was the smiley after your question which confused me. As I read you use a linux from scratch. Are you sure it looks professional advertising uptimes of 1 or 2 hours? ;-) he has to reboot every 3 hours to put on a kewl new linux kernel. -- Will Yardley input: william hq . newdream . net .
Re: gpg-key probs
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:58:PM -0500 ShRen McMahon wrote: 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 don't care about that unless they don't sign anything. I always got the keys upon request. If they were absolutely consequent they would have to stop using their own key because it may be stored on a much more untrusted server than a keyserver, IMHO. The most secure way is to carry a disc with the keys from A to B to have absolute control of the carrier... Cheers, Rocco. msg26500/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...)
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:54:17:PM -0800 Will Yardley wrote: Rocco Rutte wrote: At least it was the smiley after your question which confused me. As I read you use a linux from scratch. Are you sure it looks professional advertising uptimes of 1 or 2 hours? ;-) he has to reboot every 3 hours to put on a kewl new linux kernel. 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... Cheers, Rocco. msg26502/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
[OT] Re: Irony getting in the way (Was: Re: ignore...)
* On 2002.04.01, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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... NetBSD used to allow you to cat vmunix /dev/kernel to reload the kernel. It also forced a reboot, too, but I thought it was a neat trick. I don't care about uptime per se, but keeping my processes' state would be valuable to me, personally, and could be really quite nice for servers. It's an interesting lateral approach to the checkpointing problem. (Or maybe it *is* the checkpointing problem... I don't know the details of what you're describing, but it could go either way, I suppose.) -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: gpg-key probs
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:18:29:PM -0500 Shawn McMahon wrote: 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? Config broken... I'll try to figure out what exactly is going wrong since it's working now without any change... Cheers, Rocco. msg26508/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Irony getting in the way
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:26:05:PM -0500 Shawn McMahon wrote: It'd be easier to just make /proc/uptime writable... Yeah, but you would have to ... (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.) ... oh, you already know it. ;-) SCNR, Cheers, Rocco. msg26509/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Irony getting in the way (Was: Re: ignore...)
--WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Rocco Rutte spake thus: he has to reboot every 3 hours to put on a kewl new linux kernel. =20 It may sound funny, but I really saw some Linux guys talking about what would be necessary to replace a kernel 'on the fly'. Didn't that happen on this mailing list? If not, I must be thinking about that web forum I hang around on.=20 --=20 Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Software is like sex: It's better when it's free. -- Linus Torvalds --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8qOh1PTh2iSBKeccRAstzAJ9coy7LmK4NL5UPJK8Hc3BfAU/tGgCeMRXJ UeivZnTLqwJHaoT5sr6cPU4= =4L0F -END PGP SIGNATURE- --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL--
Re: Irony getting in the way
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:08:37:PM -0700 Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Alas! Rocco Rutte spake thus: It may sound funny, but I really saw some Linux guys talking about what would be necessary to replace a kernel 'on the fly'. Didn't that happen on this mailing list? If not, I must be thinking about that web forum I hang around on. I don't know. I bet it was in a newsgroups... and maybe here, too. That's what someone has local mail archives and online mailing list archives for. Cheers, Rocco. msg26511/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tab to new messages, of another folder?
Please don't simply reply to any random message and start a new thread. Start a new thread with a fresh message instead! I realized my mistake after I sent my email. Sorry. % Tab key is used to go to next new message within a mailfolder. Can it jump % to new messages of another mailfolder like pine does? I am sorry if I missed % something in the manual. mutt won't go to next-new in another folder, but once you tell it (through the mailboxes command) what folders to watch, you can go to the next folder with new messages when you're in the browser. I set my incoming folders and everything is fine. I just think Pine/TAB is a better way to read new mails. I will try to write a macro but I am afraid that I will be reinventing the wheel. Bo -- 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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! --
