Re: sidebar patch
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:22:35PM -0600, Luis Mochan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:22:20AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > ... > > > I guess there is some confusion: Synaptic, like aptitude and apt-get, > > > is for installing and removing packages. Update-alternatives is to > > > choose which program to use when you have several programs installed > > > that offer similar functionality, such as the patched and the > > > un-patched versions of mutt. You may install both using synaptics and > > > then choose which one to use (by default) without uninstalling the > > > other. > > > > No, that is not how it worked. I had the normal mutt for months. > > Yesterday I installed mutt-patched and it overwrote mutt. It was just a > > link to mutt-patched. Am I missing something? > > > Dear Brian, > > I guess there is still some confusion. When you installed > mutt-patched, mutt was overwritten. The same thing happened to me. In > my system, /usr/bin/mutt is a link pointing to > /etc/alternatives/mutt. Furthermore, /etc/alternatives/mutt is a link > pointing to /usr/bin/mutt-patched, which is the actual binary for the > patched version of mutt. Using the command update-alternatives as I > mentioned a couple of messages ago, this link may be replaced by a > link to /usr/bin/mutt-org, which is the binary for the unpatched > mutt. Thus I can experiment alternating freely between mutt-patched > and mutt (unpatched) without having to uninstall either. I use Debian, > but I understand that the 'alternatives' system is available in Ubuntu > also. > > Best regards, > Luis Many thanks. I understand it now. It is indeed like your describe in Ubuntu. I had just not come across this alternates idea before. 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: sidebar patch
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:22:20AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > ... > > I guess there is some confusion: Synaptic, like aptitude and apt-get, > > is for installing and removing packages. Update-alternatives is to > > choose which program to use when you have several programs installed > > that offer similar functionality, such as the patched and the > > un-patched versions of mutt. You may install both using synaptics and > > then choose which one to use (by default) without uninstalling the > > other. > > No, that is not how it worked. I had the normal mutt for months. > Yesterday I installed mutt-patched and it overwrote mutt. It was just a > link to mutt-patched. Am I missing something? > Dear Brian, I guess there is still some confusion. When you installed mutt-patched, mutt was overwritten. The same thing happened to me. In my system, /usr/bin/mutt is a link pointing to /etc/alternatives/mutt. Furthermore, /etc/alternatives/mutt is a link pointing to /usr/bin/mutt-patched, which is the actual binary for the patched version of mutt. Using the command update-alternatives as I mentioned a couple of messages ago, this link may be replaced by a link to /usr/bin/mutt-org, which is the binary for the unpatched mutt. Thus I can experiment alternating freely between mutt-patched and mutt (unpatched) without having to uninstall either. I use Debian, but I understand that the 'alternatives' system is available in Ubuntu also. Best regards, Luis
Re: People that CC mailing lists
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:40:14PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:30:32AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:46:34AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > > > > If you have the list in your .muutrc 'subscribe' and or 'lists' commands > > > > then the correct way to reply to the list is L[ist reply]. > > > > > > 'L' works when there is a List-Post header, so no need for a subcribe or > > > list command. > > > > > Yes, but not every mailing list has such a header. > > Also, an off-list copy that you receive, but CCd to the list, will not > have the rfc2369 headers, which mnight explain the inconsistent behavior > that one user mentioned. That could be one of the reasons people hate being CC'd. I tend to ignore CC'd mail and just reply to the list, but there is one (some?) mailing list software which if the message is CC'd or To you then you don't get sent a list copy by default. You physically have to click a box on a web page to say send me all mail EVEN IF the message is CC'd or addressed To me. PITA first time. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: People that CC mailing lists
On 11Feb2013 15:40, Will Yardley wrote: | On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:30:32AM +, Chris Green wrote: | > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:46:34AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: | > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +, Chris Green wrote: | | > > > If you have the list in your .muutrc 'subscribe' and or 'lists' commands | > > > then the correct way to reply to the list is L[ist reply]. | > > | > > 'L' works when there is a List-Post header, so no need for a subcribe or | > > list command. | > > | > Yes, but not every mailing list has such a header. | | Also, an off-list copy that you receive, but CCd to the list, will not | have the rfc2369 headers, which mnight explain the inconsistent behavior | that one user mentioned. Indeed. That goes both ways of course; this can happen if the list is in To: and the recipient is in CC:. -- Cameron Simpson Castor and Pollux, from cops preserve me and all encounters involving insurance. - Paul Goodman
Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] People that CC mailing lists
On 10Feb2013 07:32, Russell L. Harris wrote: | * David Woodfall [130210 00:45]: | > I've a few mailing lists where people don't send to the mailing list | > instead they CC it. In which case when I reply to the list mutt | > doesn't recognise it as a list and I have to do a normal reply and | > manually put in the mailing list address in the send field. | ... | > I guess the other way is to nag people into using a proper email | > client :) | | Please tell me if I am using the wrong command when attempting to | reply to a mail list regarding a message on the list. I am running | Mutt on Debian Squeeze. | | In order to reply to your message, I press "g" (for "group reply"), | and Mutt generates the following header pair: | | To: David Woodfall | Cc: mutt-users@mutt.org | | Is there a command other than "g" which is appropriate when replying | to a group? David has discovered that his config was wrong. It doesn't matter whether the list is named in To or CC. Remain calm. -- Cameron Simpson From the back of the research lab, the sound of a large metallic pile of loose objects collapsing, accompanied by a loud "Aaaaiiieeyyrrgghhh!!" from George. A few seconds of silence, then: "I'll have to call you back."
Re: People that CC mailing lists
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:30:32AM +, Chris Green wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:46:34AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > > If you have the list in your .muutrc 'subscribe' and or 'lists' commands > > > then the correct way to reply to the list is L[ist reply]. > > > > 'L' works when there is a List-Post header, so no need for a subcribe or > > list command. > > > Yes, but not every mailing list has such a header. Also, an off-list copy that you receive, but CCd to the list, will not have the rfc2369 headers, which mnight explain the inconsistent behavior that one user mentioned. w
Re: sidebar patch
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:55:09PM -0600, Luis Mochan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:29:29AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > ... > > > > > > Under Debian you could run > > > > > > sudo update-alternatives --config mutt > > > > > > to choose which mutt (patched or not) to run by default. I guess that > > > Ubuntu is similar. Thus, it was not really necessary to > > > uninstall/reinstall in order to test and choose among the two mutt > > > versions. Of > > > course, you already did... > > > > Indeed. I used the synaptic package manager. That is probably more > > simple minded than updating from a prompt in the terminal. Nevertheless > > it is very easy to use. > > > > I guess there is some confusion: Synaptic, like aptitude and apt-get, > is for installing and removing packages. Update-alternatives is to > choose which program to use when you have several programs installed > that offer similar functionality, such as the patched and the > un-patched versions of mutt. You may install both using synaptics and > then choose which one to use (by default) without uninstalling the > other. No, that is not how it worked. I had the normal mutt for months. Yesterday I installed mutt-patched and it overwrote mutt. It was just a link to mutt-patched. Am I missing something? Brian. > Regards, > Luis > > > -- > > o > W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) > Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ > Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ > Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | moc...@fis.unam.mx /\_/\__/ > GPG: DD344B85, 2ADC B65A 5499 C2D3 4A3B 93F3 AE20 0F5E DD34 4B85 > -- A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five. -- Marx (guess which one) Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Re: sidebar patch
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:29:29AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > ... > > > > Under Debian you could run > > > > sudo update-alternatives --config mutt > > > > to choose which mutt (patched or not) to run by default. I guess that > > Ubuntu is similar. Thus, it was not really necessary to > > uninstall/reinstall in order to test and choose among the two mutt > > versions. Of > > course, you already did... > > Indeed. I used the synaptic package manager. That is probably more > simple minded than updating from a prompt in the terminal. Nevertheless > it is very easy to use. > I guess there is some confusion: Synaptic, like aptitude and apt-get, is for installing and removing packages. Update-alternatives is to choose which program to use when you have several programs installed that offer similar functionality, such as the patched and the un-patched versions of mutt. You may install both using synaptics and then choose which one to use (by default) without uninstalling the other. Regards, Luis -- o W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | moc...@fis.unam.mx /\_/\__/ GPG: DD344B85, 2ADC B65A 5499 C2D3 4A3B 93F3 AE20 0F5E DD34 4B85
Re: sidebar patch
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:16:08PM -0600, Luis Mochan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:02:39AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:46AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:46:11PM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:52:57PM +0530, dexter wrote: > > > > > > ... > > easier to use mutt without it. Unfortunately installing mutt-patched > > installed /usr/bin/mutt-patched but overwrote /usr/bin/mutt to be a soft > > link to mutt-patched. I had to uninstall mutt-patched and then reinstall > > mutt to get rid of the sidebar. Back to normal now. > > > > Under Debian you could run > > sudo update-alternatives --config mutt > > to choose which mutt (patched or not) to run by default. I guess that > Ubuntu is similar. Thus, it was not really necessary to > uninstall/reinstall in order to test and choose among the two mutt versions. > Of > course, you already did... Indeed. I used the synaptic package manager. That is probably more simple minded than updating from a prompt in the terminal. Nevertheless it is very easy to use. Brian. > Best regards, > Luis > > > -- > > o > W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) > Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ > Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ > Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | moc...@fis.unam.mx /\_/\__/ > GPG: DD344B85, 2ADC B65A 5499 C2D3 4A3B 93F3 AE20 0F5E DD34 4B85 > -- "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Gandhi, being prophetic about Linux. Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Re: sidebar patch
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:02:39AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:46AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:46:11PM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:52:57PM +0530, dexter wrote: > > > > > ... > easier to use mutt without it. Unfortunately installing mutt-patched > installed /usr/bin/mutt-patched but overwrote /usr/bin/mutt to be a soft > link to mutt-patched. I had to uninstall mutt-patched and then reinstall > mutt to get rid of the sidebar. Back to normal now. > Under Debian you could run sudo update-alternatives --config mutt to choose which mutt (patched or not) to run by default. I guess that Ubuntu is similar. Thus, it was not really necessary to uninstall/reinstall in order to test and choose among the two mutt versions. Of course, you already did... Best regards, Luis -- o W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | moc...@fis.unam.mx /\_/\__/ GPG: DD344B85, 2ADC B65A 5499 C2D3 4A3B 93F3 AE20 0F5E DD34 4B85
Re: Alternate Addresses
On Feb 11, Ed wrote: > Mutt is telling me that alternates is an unknown variable. I used:: > > set alternates="myem...@example.com" > > Of course I put the actual address in tha above. Where did I go wrong ? > > Ed Thanks for the replies, I now see the error of my ways. Google sent me down the wrong path. Ed
Re: Alternate Addresses
On Feb 11, 2013 at 03:57 PM -0500, Ed wrote: Of course I put the actual address in tha above. Where did I go wrong ? I just have: alternates (addr...@example.com|t...@example.com)
Re: Alternate Addresses
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:57:09PM -0500, Ed wrote: Mutt is telling me that alternates is an unknown variable. I used:: set alternates="myem...@example.com" Of course I put the actual address in tha above. Where did I go wrong ? alternates used to be a variable, but now it is a command, so you use it like this instead: alternates myem...@example.com http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#alternates
Re: sidebar patch
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:46AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:46:11PM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:52:57PM +0530, dexter wrote: > > > > I'm new to mutt, just installed one and getting > > > > to know it, how do i get sidebar in mutt, google > > > > search tells me that i have to apply a patch, > > > > i'm running on ubuntu, where can i get this patch? > > > > > > Debian and derivatives such as Ubuntu provide a `mutt-patched` package, > > > which includes the sidebar patch. > > > > I have Ubuntu 12.04 and Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15) unmodified by me. It > > does not have the sidebar patch as far as I can see. > > Then I suspect you have the `mutt` package [0] installed rather than > `mutt-patched` [1]. The sidebar patch is only included in the latter. > > [0] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/mail/mutt > [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/mail/mutt-patched Yes, you are right. mutt has a whole lot of patches included, so I did not think to look for a more patched version. I have long been wary about the sidebar patch but had never tried it. I now understand why it is not included in the main release and I fully support that. It is easier to use mutt without it. Unfortunately installing mutt-patched installed /usr/bin/mutt-patched but overwrote /usr/bin/mutt to be a soft link to mutt-patched. I had to uninstall mutt-patched and then reinstall mutt to get rid of the sidebar. Back to normal now. Brian. > -- > Scott Stevenson -- I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much, of course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the century was going to end. -- Douglas Adams Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Alternate Addresses
Mutt is telling me that alternates is an unknown variable. I used:: set alternates="myem...@example.com" Of course I put the actual address in tha above. Where did I go wrong ? Ed
Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] People that CC mailing lists
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:46:34AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:32:13AM +, Russell L. Harris wrote: > > > * David Woodfall [130210 00:45]: > > > > I've a few mailing lists where people don't send to the mailing list > > > > instead they CC it. In which case when I reply to the list mutt > > > > doesn't recognise it as a list and I have to do a normal reply and > > > > manually put in the mailing list address in the send field. > > > ... > > > > I guess the other way is to nag people into using a proper email > > > > client :) > > > > > > Please tell me if I am using the wrong command when attempting to > > > reply to a mail list regarding a message on the list. I am running > > > Mutt on Debian Squeeze. > > > > > If you have the list in your .muutrc 'subscribe' and or 'lists' commands > > then the correct way to reply to the list is L[ist reply]. > > 'L' works when there is a List-Post header, so no need for a subcribe or > list command. > Yes, but not every mailing list has such a header. -- Chris Green
Re: sidebar patch
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:56:46AM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:46:11PM +0100, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:52:57PM +0530, dexter wrote: > > > I'm new to mutt, just installed one and getting > > > to know it, how do i get sidebar in mutt, google > > > search tells me that i have to apply a patch, > > > i'm running on ubuntu, where can i get this patch? > > > > Debian and derivatives such as Ubuntu provide a `mutt-patched` package, > > which includes the sidebar patch. > > I have Ubuntu 12.04 and Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15) unmodified by me. It > does not have the sidebar patch as far as I can see. Then I suspect you have the `mutt` package [0] installed rather than `mutt-patched` [1]. The sidebar patch is only included in the latter. [0] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/mail/mutt [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/mail/mutt-patched -- Scott Stevenson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
