Re: quoting in folder-hook
Sven, thanks for explaining again that the command argument to folder-hook must be quoted in its entirety, but that was not the point. please read the manual carefully: 3.5. Setting variables based upon mailbox folder-hook [!]regexp command it says command - so this is *one* parameter I am sorry but IMHO that is rather far fetched. Other commands in mutt don't need quoting, which adds confusion. A note there explicitly saying that command needs quoting would rather improve the value of the documentation to non-computer scientists and newbies. However, if the general audience thinks that a software package doesn't need to be more user-friendly then I'm happy to shut up. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Re: Announcing an Emacs mode for mutt configuration files
* Gregor Zattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-19 20:30:02 +0200]: Hi Dave, * Dave Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fre 19 Apr 2002 10:37:54 GMT]: [...] I use: , | ;;; muttrc-mode.el --- Major mode to edit muttrc under Emacs | | ;;; Copyright (C) 2000 Laurent Pelecq | ;;; | ;;; Author: Laurent Pelecq [EMAIL PROTECTED] ` but, annoyingly, I can't remember where I got it from and I can't locate it in the ELL or via Google. Could you please post it? It's a little too big to be sending to the list IMO. I'll send a copy direct to you. For the benefit of others on the list, I've had an email from the author to say that a new version will be available in the next day or so (hopefully announced here). -- Dave Pearson: | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams http://www.davep.org/ | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards Mutt: | muttrc2html - muttrc - HTML utility http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode
Re: quoting in folder-hook
Volker Kuhlmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: Sven, thanks for explaining again that the command argument to folder-hook must be quoted in its entirety, but that was not the point. please read the manual carefully: 3.5. Setting variables based upon mailbox folder-hook [!]regexp command it says command - so this is *one* parameter I am sorry but IMHO that is rather far fetched. Other commands in mutt don't need quoting, which adds confusion. However, if the general audience thinks that a software package doesn't need to be more user-friendly then I'm happy to shut up. Short: Not true - so shut up ;) Long: All mutt commands need quoting, if an argument includes spaces. Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: quoting in folder-hook
Volker -- ...and then Volker Kuhlmann said... % ... %3.5. Setting variables based upon mailbox %folder-hook [!]regexp command % % it says command - so this is *one* parameter % % I am sorry but IMHO that is rather far fetched. Other commands in mutt % don't need quoting, which adds confusion. A note there explicitly Other commands don't need quoting just like a folder-hook command doesn't need quoting: if it is recognizable as a single command then you don't have to quote it, but if it contains common field delimiters (aka whitespace) then it needs to be quoted so that it is once again a single parameter. % saying that command needs quoting would rather improve the value of the Well, that it might need quoting, anyway... % documentation to non-computer scientists and newbies. However, if the % general audience thinks that a software package doesn't need to be more % user-friendly then I'm happy to shut up. That isn't a bad idea (improving the documentation, I mean :-) It's pretty obvious to lots of people that the way to make sure your command is recognized atomically is to wrap it in quotes, but if you can come up with a good improvement then post it to the list for review and maybe it will make it into the next tarball. % % Volker % % -- % Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header % http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me. You should set your Mail-Followup-To: header or tell mutt that you've subscribed to mutt-users when you take a moment to take care of the tab damage in your sig. :-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! msg27520/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
sending mail non-interactively with -H draft
I want to send (say from a script), the same way i may send like this: mutt whoever -ssubject/etc/passwd But with the -H and a draft that contains all the header info and a complete body, it always prompts me. Can I avoid the prompt? -- Eric Smith
Re: sending mail non-interactively with -H draft
Eric Smith wrote: I want to send (say from a script), the same way i may send like this: mutt whoever -ssubject/etc/passwd But with the -H and a draft that contains all the header info and a complete body, it always prompts me. Can I avoid the prompt? If you already have the header created, just call sendmail directly: /usr/sbin/sendmail -t /tmp/draft.txt The -t option makes sendmail get the recipients from the header of the message.
Re: PGP signature verification
Hello Rocco and ALL, On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten content-type headers by formail. This could be that something was modified by proc/formail that is necessary to PGP verify... I propose something: You, David, Thorsten, and anybody else suffering from the same problem, copy one or two of the unverifiable mails to a temporary mailbox, zip it, and send to me privately the gz. If I find something different from the same mails I have in my mutt-users archive, we will know that's something bad in your delivery process. If I find nothing different, and can verify them, this will mean bad PGP config. I'll summarize the list. David: You can include one of your own mails from your record box. Just make clear what is what. Bye!Alain.
Re: X-Header
Hi ! How can i set X-Headers of this type : Sorry too quick - X-fortune or X-uptime etc ? NE
Re: X-Header
begin Nik Engel quotation: Hi ! How can i set X-Headers of this type : To set X-Headers of any type, use the my_hdr command, which you will find in the muttrc man page. Blank X-Headers (which is what you requested) would be a standard case of that. Not sure why you want to set blank X-Headers, though. :-) -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27525/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
giving me the following result: X-Uptime: 18:09:29 up 32 days, 5:40, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.08 This is what the backtick operator is for. For example, if you say: my_hdr X-Issue: `cat /etc/issue | head -1` It executes the command in the backticks, and substitutes its output at that position, giving you something like: X-Issue: Red Hat Linux release 7.2 (Enigma) -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research msg27526/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Nik Engel wrote: Hi ! How can i set X-Headers of this type : Sorry too quick - X-fortune or X-uptime etc ? giving me the following result: X-Uptime: 18:09:29 up 32 days, 5:40, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.08
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/22/02 16:46:17 CEST] wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
content-type headers by formail.
This could be that something was modified by proc/formail that is
necessary to PGP verify... I propose something:
My procmail rules look like:
,[ ~/.procmailrc ]-
| :0:
| * !^Content-Type: message/
| * !^Content-Type: multipart/
| * !^Content-Type: application/pgp
| {
| :0 fBw
| * ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
| * ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
| | formail -i Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt;
| [...]
| }
`-
As you see, only the body is checked and the header is
modified. I answered David's mail because I think to have the
reason for the following behaviour:
1) GnuPG says the signature is good but
2) Mutt says it could not be verified
This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now
application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the
reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens.
Cheers, Rocco.
msg27528/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Rocck -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % ... % This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now % application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's verified. Alain, thanks for your digging, and I will get out a couple of candidates to you today. % % 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! msg27529/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
begin Mike Schiraldi quotation: giving me the following result: X-Uptime: 18:09:29 up 32 days, 5:40, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.08 Of course, it's a very silly flag to use, since it's so easy to fake. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27530/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Folder Hook for Mailinglists
Incoming from Nik Engel:
What kind of folder hooks are you using for Mailinglists.
I think of something like:
Show initally only unread (limit ~U) but if there is a corresponding
thread show whole thread with unread posts.
How can i set the right folder hook ?
Or what else is practical ?
I don't know :-) but perhaps an example from my collection might help:
folder-hook IN.abusesave-hook . =abuse
Procmail dumps mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] into my ~/Mail/IN.abuse
mailbox. Once I've seen it, s saves it to ~/Mail/abuse.
I have a problem with that, though. I've managed to override the
default so now I need something like:
folder-hook . save-hook . ~/Mail/${sender_username}
How do I reclaim the default behaviour?
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
TopQuark Software Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
Re: Folder Hook for Mailinglists
Hello!
...and then s. keeling said...
%
...
%
%folder-hook IN.abusesave-hook . =abuse
...
% default so now I need something like:
%
%folder-hook . save-hook . ~/Mail/${sender_username}
%
% How do I reclaim the default behaviour?
1) Never change folders; always start a new mutt :-)
2) Have you tried saving to =%O? See it in 6.3.83 (I still think there
should be a central list of all expandos instead of expecting people
asking save questions to look under index format options...).
3) IIRC there's an unhook out there that might also let you undo the
change. Oh, wait; that's part of DGC's unbind feature patch. I haven't
played with it much yet.
%
% --
% Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
% TopQuark Software Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
HTN 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!
msg27532/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Folder Hook for Mailinglists
Incoming from David T-G:
...and then s. keeling said...
%
%folder-hook IN.abusesave-hook . =abuse
...
% default so now I need something like:
%
%folder-hook . save-hook . ~/Mail/${sender_username}
%
% How do I reclaim the default behaviour?
2) Have you tried saving to =%O? See it in 6.3.83 (I still think there
Thanks for the hint. Looking that up in the manual, it's a little
unclear to me, however =%u appears to do what I wanted.
%O (_O_riginal save folder) Where mutt would formerly have stashed the
message: list name or recipient name if no list.
How does formerly get in there? And does that mean it would be
saved to =mutt-users if from mutt-users list, and to =${sender_name}
if not to a list? I suppose I should just try it.
Thanks.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
TopQuark Software Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
Re: Folder Hook for Mailinglists
Incoming from s. keeling: Thanks for the hint. Looking that up in the manual, it's a little unclear to me, however =%u appears to do what I wanted. In fact, =%u is what I was looking for. My mutt mail storage dir is mutt, not mutt-users. Prefect. :-) -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. TopQuark Software Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote: Rocck -- Creative, I must say. ;-) ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now % application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's verified. Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. To make my point once more: I use procmail to rewrite a content type of text/plain of pgp signed messages to make mutt recognize it. When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says the signature could not be verified. This seems to be case if the content type was rewritten. If it is left untouched, mutt always says it was okay. In my archive every mail is untouched. So I looked at one of them (with content type text/plain) and used check-traditional- pgp. Result: gpg suceeds, mutt fails. I can't explain this one. If there isn't much interest in the case I'll just ignore mutt's messages and only rely on gpg. Cheers, Rocco. msg27535/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
PGP signature
Hi, I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine, asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline. Is there something that I have configured wrong? Please advise. Rgds Rahul -- --- the bug stops here --- msg27536/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature
begin Rahul Rekapalli quotation: I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine, asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline. Is there something that I have configured wrong? Please advise. No, there's something they've configured wrong. Tell them to read RFC 3156 and get back to you when their mailer supports it. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27537/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature
Rahul -- ...and then Rahul Rekapalli said... % % Hi, Hello! % I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the % PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine, Of course. mutt sucks less than anything else! % asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline. That's because they use Pine instead of The One True MUA. % Is there something that I have configured wrong? Please advise. You've just stepped into a war zone :-) I'll respond that your mutt is configured correctly and, additionally, that you're doing it Right and your friends are doing it Wrong, and I'm sure there will be someone to come along and say exactly the opposite. You can find much more info on the PGP/MIME vs pgp_create_traditional debate in the mailing list archives if you want to learn about the matter. In short, if you want to stick with the standard, handle charsets other than ASCII, and/or manage attachments under PGP, then don't change a thing and enjoy PGP/MIME, but if you don't mind the limitations inherent in switching, you could set pgp_create_traditional and send your messages with the old in-line signing as still required by some mail user agents. % % Rgds % Rahul 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! msg27538/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote: % Rocck -- % % Creative, I must say. ;-) Whoops. That is clue number one ... % % ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % % This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now % % application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the % % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. % % Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's % verified. % % Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is % a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. ... and here's clue number two. Must have been way too early for me. Sorry! So *now* what do you get? TIA^^2 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! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8xHQHGb7uCXufRwARArxkAJ0do0jvBDm3WzfRdRSBctoNScMZLQCeODzS QMT5NGUzvn3EMzudUKC2ieI= =1SF+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: X-Header
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 12:45:48PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote: Of course, it's a very silly flag to use, since it's so easy to fake. X-Uptime: 12:43pm up 1056 days, 3:28, 700 users, load average: 0.05, 0.06, 0.07 Quite a machine you have there ;) -- Joakim Andersson ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://borgship.net/~tyrak/
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * David T-G [04/22/02 22:35:19 CEST] wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote: % ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now % % application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the % % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. % % Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's % verified. % % Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is % a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. ... and here's clue number two. Must have been way too early for me. Sorry! So *now* what do you get? GnuPG verifies it while mutt doesn't. As expected. So, I this is what I have so far: My mutt has problems with traditional pgp signatures created by the sender. Adjusting the content/type doesn't help, too. I'm interested in what others get to find out wether it's a general problem or something is wrong with my modified version of mutt. Cheers, Rocco. msg27541/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Header
Alas! Shawn McMahon spake thus: begin Mike Schiraldi quotation: giving me the following result: X-Uptime: 18:09:29 up 32 days, 5:40, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.08 Of course, it's a very silly flag to use, since it's so easy to fake. Who ever heard of such a thing! ;) -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Even a blind pig stumbles upon a few acorns. msg27542/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: I'm interested in what others get to find out wether it's a general problem or something is wrong with my modified version of mutt. nope, happens to me too - only slightly modified version - vvv.nntp and compressed patch, is all, I think... -- Dan Boger [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg27543/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: quotes - set attribution=`script`
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 03:56:31AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: * Bernard Massot [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-19 19:47]: it's : If (date written=a_monday) then quote with D'al ... Else quote with D'ar ... In brezhoneg language, you must write d'al lun (on monday) but d'ar meurzh (on tuesday), d'ar yaou (on thursday), etc... *That* is what I want to do. I'm sure Outlook will support it one day. HA! Now, how about using just WHATEVER in the attribution and replacing it from inside your editor? Sven [if mutt can't do it - then your editor can!] I managed to do it, with this ugly hack : $ tail -1 ~/.vimrc autocmd BufRead /tmp/mutt*[0-9] source ~/.mutt/mutt.vim $ cat /home/bernard/.mutt/mutt.vim krizerez evit ar brezhoneg call setline(1,substitute(getline(line(.)),^D'ar lun,D'al lun,)) $ but I feel it's not the best solution ;) -- Bernard Massot msg27544/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
