Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor the headers or not To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT. It could though. For instance, if the mailing list detected that one of its recipients were already listed in the recipient list, it could elect not to send a copy to that member. I'm not saying it SHOULD do this, and in fact I think it should not. However, this and maybe a few other similar things are possible. *The* problem is users not responding to list, L, but rather to all, g. There ARE valid reasons to do this. For example, if the list you're on is known to be slow, the receiver will get an answer faster if you cc them. Or even if the list you're on is not known to be slow, the recipient is more likely to get a response faster if you copy them directly. Again, I'm not saying this should be standard practice. I'm just saying that it's valid and not entirely unreasonable. The expectation of one reading/writing a list that they would continue to do so until unsubscribing, a statement that they no longer will read the list. ...unless the expectation has explicitly been overridden. Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpjojwbXgAeq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Run command on an attachment
My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that by scp-ing files to that machine and then ssh -X into that machine. To scp an attachment to the other machine, I first save it from the attachment menu. I'd like to skip this step. Is it possible to scp an attachment directly from mutt? -- Salve
Re: Run command on an attachment
Hej, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote: My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that by scp-ing files to that machine and then ssh -X into that machine. To scp an attachment to the other machine, I first save it from the attachment menu. I'd like to skip this step. Is it possible to scp an attachment directly from mutt? Well, you could try at least something like below: macro attach ,p 'pipe-entryssh -X user@remotehost cat - ~/out.odt; oowriter ~/out.odtenter So you can type ,p upon the attachment and get it opened on the remote host. Obvious drawback is the hard coded program on the remote host - but that should be easily replacable by sth acting dependent upon the file extension. hth, thomas
Re: Run command on an attachment
Hello once more, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:28:43PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote: Hej, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote: My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that by scp-ing files to that machine and then ssh -X into that machine. To scp an attachment to the other machine, I first save it from the attachment menu. I'd like to skip this step. Is it possible to scp an attachment directly from mutt? Well, you could try at least something like below: macro attach ,p 'pipe-entryssh -X user@remotehost cat - ~/out.odt; oowriter ~/out.odtenter So you can type ,p upon the attachment and get it opened on the remote host. Obvious drawback is the hard coded program on the remote host - but that should be easily replacable by sth acting dependent upon the file extension. ok, the latter was rubbish because afaik you will not be able to set the file name on the remote host dynamically. However, you could still (a) define one macro per file extension or (b) try to use file(1) to invoke the right program. bye, thomas
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. and I like how mutt does this. You have MFT set to mutt-users@mutt.org. I hit 'g' and got that. If I'd hit 'r' instead, it would have gone straight to you. This is so freaking simple I don't understand why more MUAs don't implement it. It leaves the choice of where replies go to the person originating the email. I, for instance, prefer the message to go through the list so it ends up in my folder set up for the list. If I decide I want something different, I can always change my own MFT while editing the email and mutt will honor that. 3 mutt. The least shitty mail client out there. -Jeremy pgp5ToBxQYpdJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. While you disagree with my general and incomplete statement, I do agree with you that there are times when a private reply is prudent, ie: remarking about a situation and not wanting to start a flame-ware, or character assination But this is private mail and not list mail even though responding to list posts. The list is a public entity and private mail is *private*. I *read* the list mail and prefer *not* receiving duplicate posts. Except for moderated lists, I find list mail to be very speedy, re: post time-to-list appearance. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Run command on an attachment
Dear Salve, Thomas,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:36:44PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote:
Hello once more,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:28:43PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote:
Hej,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote:
...
Is it possible to scp an attachment directly from mutt?
A short time ago I posted here a small script which may be useful to
run arbitrary commands on arbitrary attachments. I put the cursor on
the desired attachment and tipe:
| muttfilter filename program [arguments ...]
where filename is the name with which you want to save the attachment
(maybe temporarily) and program is the program or script you want to
run on that file. The arguments are optional. Maybe it can be useful
to run the script that copies to the other machine and runs
openoffice, etc. You could have a different script for each required file type
The script is:
#!/bin/bash
# muttfilter
# to filter from mutt
#first copy standard in to regular file giving some name
# then open with some program using some arguments
#Usage muttfilter name program args
cat - $1
# Then run command with given arguments on filename
$2 ${@:3} $1
Well, you could try at least something like below:
macro attach ,p 'pipe-entryssh -X user@remotehost cat - ~/out.odt;
oowriter ~/out.odtenter
So you can type ,p upon the attachment and get it opened on the remote
host.
Obvious drawback is the hard coded program on the remote host - but
that should be easily replacable by sth acting dependent upon the file
extension.
ok, the latter was rubbish because afaik you will not be able to set
the file name on the remote host dynamically. However, you could still
(a) define one macro per file extension or (b) try to use file(1) to
invoke the right program.
bye,
thomas
--
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: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. While you disagree with my general and incomplete statement, I do agree with you that there are times when a private reply is prudent Fair enough, but I'll just say that I make the distinction because there exist such people that believe that policy should be enforced, and specifically FORCED, by adding a reply-to header that points back to mailing lists (as you well know). I don't normally like to make unequivocal statements about things that are opinions, but this is a case where these people are just plain WRONG. The reason doing this is wrong is because: 1. It creates a policy whereby it is assumed that all users are not smart enough to figure out for themselves what kind of reply is desired/optimal (though sadly, in some cases that turns out to be true). 2. Doing so makes it next to impossible to reply privately when you know you actually want that. Most clients automanaiacally follow Reply-To if it is present, in which case the author of such a response will have to manually edit the recipient list, which on some clients may involve aborting the reply to get back to the messge view to find what the sender's address actually is. If you've ever had to do this, you know it's tedious and annoying. Mutt is the only client I know of that gives you a choice in the matter, via the $reply-to variable. Though, it's been a long while since I used Pine, that may have a similar option that I've forgotten. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpMxETEwDFB1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
I've just got to say, as much as I think this's interesting, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly when used
correctly. Perhaps USENET:comp.mail.misc would be a better venue for
this discussion?
Just a suggestion. :-) And I'm on the side of the Please, don't Cc:
me, fwiw.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 15:45]: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] While you disagree with my general and incomplete statement, I do agree with you that there are times when a private reply is prudent Fair enough, but I'll just say that I make the distinction because there exist such people that believe that policy should be enforced, and specifically FORCED, by adding a reply-to header that points back to mailing lists (as you well know). I don't normally like to make unequivocal statements about things that are opinions, but this is a case where these people are just plain WRONG. The reason doing this is wrong is because: 1. It creates a policy whereby it is assumed that all users are not smart enough to figure out for themselves what kind of reply is desired/optimal (though sadly, in some cases that turns out to be true). 2. Doing so makes it next to impossible to reply privately when you know you actually want that. Most clients automanaiacally follow Reply-To if it is present, in which case the author of such a response will have to manually edit the recipient list, which on some clients may involve aborting the reply to get back to the messge view to find what the sender's address actually is. If you've ever had to do this, you know it's tedious and annoying. Mutt is the only client I know of that gives you a choice in the matter, via the $reply-to variable. Though, it's been a long while since I used Pine, that may have a similar option that I've forgotten. Then there is *little* we disagree with in this scope. I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting receipt at home. And is mostly a crutch for unknowning/unable individuals to control their email environment and probably do not even know about Reply-To:. My current mailing system exists on a remote machine which I ssh into for mail access and other functions. I maintain tmux sessions containing email, photo galeries, remote access to other machines, etc., which I can access via ssh from nearly any machine which has a usb port. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
Incoming from Jeremy Kitchen:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I
and I like how mutt does this. You have MFT set to mutt-users@mutt.org.
I hit 'g' and got that.
If I'd hit 'r' instead, it would have gone straight to you.
This is so freaking simple I don't understand why more MUAs don't
ACK!!!
Face it; we're dinosaurs. Understanding how it *ought* to work has
nothing to do with how it *does* work. We need to learn to work
around the morans if we choose to continue using / communicating
this way.
Tilting at windmills just makes you look crazy. It doesn't help anyone.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:52:25PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: Incoming from Derek Martin: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the I've just got to say, as much as I think this's interesting, this's not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly when used correctly. Perhaps USENET:comp.mail.misc would be a better venue for this discussion? The key there may well be *when used correctly*... which very much is the topic of this mailing list. But no matter. This discussion ultimately arose as a direct result of someone asking to change the default policy of this mailing list. Where else would you have such a discussion, but on the list itself? It also has addressed a number of ways in which Mutt users can or CAN NOT deal with the specific issues raised by the OP and his direct responders. As such it is very much related both to Mutt and to this mailing list. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpVyasLT80KJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT. *The* problem is users not responding to list, L, but rather to all, g. For the record, I'll also note that I rarely actually do this, even though I agree 100%. This is a matter of habit rather than malice; by far the most e-mail I reply to is at work, where even though most of the mail I reply to comes from a mailing list, it also invariably includes half a dozen other recipients that are not (or at least might not be) on the list, so list replies are inadequate. We have a truly staggering number of mailing lists, and having to look to see if each recipient happens to be on the list in question is just impractical. So as a (bad) habit I group-reply to nearly 100% of my mail, excepting the relatively rare cases when it occurs to me that I want to say something to the sender that is not appropriate for the group, or the exceedingly rare cases when I remember to list-reply. Mea culpa. Luckily for you, there are a variety of ways for you to cope with my dups. Use one. :) -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgp6S1maM62fR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 17:29]: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT. *The* problem is users not responding to list, L, but rather to all, g. For the record, I'll also note that I rarely actually do this, even though I agree 100%. This is a matter of habit rather than malice; by far the most e-mail I reply to is at work, where even though most of the mail I reply to comes from a mailing list, it also invariably includes half a dozen other recipients that are not (or at least might not be) on the list, so list replies are inadequate. We have a truly staggering number of mailing lists, and having to look to see if each recipient happens to be on the list in question is just impractical. So as a (bad) habit I group-reply to nearly 100% of my mail, excepting the relatively rare cases when it occurs to me that I want to say something to the sender that is not appropriate for the group, or the exceedingly rare cases when I remember to list-reply. Mea culpa. Luckily for you, there are a variety of ways for you to cope with my dups. Use one. :) I understand and do. We are all creatures of habit, an excuse not a justification :^). But we all must strive to do better. You, hopefully all of us, will reach an age where you have time to make the effort, and realize that such things are just common courtesy. tks, -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. And in my previous post I failed to address your statement correctly. I know you have control of your mail reading client, mutt, and can address mail as you choose. And this is how it *should* be. But list mail is still a public thing and *private* mail is *private*. I see no reason to send the *same* mail both to the list and the OP, unless he has requested separate copy. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Jeremy Kitchen kitc...@kitchen.io [02-27-13 15:15]: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical and inefficient. Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. and I like how mutt does this. You have MFT set to mutt-users@mutt.org. I hit 'g' and got that. If I'd hit 'r' instead, it would have gone straight to you. And you do realize that g, group-reply, is not the correct way to respond to mailing list posts using mutt. The *correct* manner is L, list-reply, but pre-supposes you correctly maintain your ~/.muttrc and/or the list software provides the correct headers And all list-software does not *insert* MFT headers, and the MFT header is not necessary for proper list responses. Remember that it is *you* posting and *your* responsibility for content, not the software you employe or the list-server software. Do you bother to look at the headers for the msgs you post or respond? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:52:25PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in
the
I've just got to say, as much as I think this's interesting, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly when used
This discussion ultimately arose as a direct result of someone asking
to change the default policy of this mailing list. Where else would
Ah. I stand corrected. I just thought this may be annoying the list
maintainers for being tangential/orthogonal. Carry on. :-)
Now why didn't L work on replying to you, yet r correctly (?!?)
replies to m-u? You people. You're all different. Line up, will
ya?!? :-P
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
Incoming from Patrick Shanahan:
... justification :^). But we all must strive to do better. You,
hopefully all of us, will reach an age where you have time to make
the effort, and realize that such things are just common courtesy.
Yeah, and one day *real soon now*, everyone will know how to and
prefer to use crypto. I wish.
[just mumbling, sorry. Get off my lawn!]
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* s. keeling keel...@nucleus.com [02-27-13 18:55]:
[...]
Now why didn't L work on replying to you, yet r correctly (?!?)
replies to m-u? You people. You're all different. Line up, will
ya?!? :-P
If L did not work, you have something amiss in /etc/{Mm}uttrc or ~/.muttrc
For list mail I use L exclusively, with one exception, a private list
using LYRIS which has Reply-To: set to the list addr. I haven't found
the right combination to make mutt see it as a list and I have list and
subscribe set to the list addr
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:43:42PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: If you've ever had to do this, you know it's tedious and annoying. Mutt is the only client I know of that gives you a choice in the matter, via the $reply-to variable. I wondered why I couldn't find it. :) JFTR, it's $reply_to -- 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: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote: I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting receipt at home. Hmmm, I've tried using Reply-To: to point back to the list, in the hope that it'd discourage those pesky additional courtesy replies. It's rarely had any effect, but wouldn't it be wonderful if most MUAs would respect it? Erik -- If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom. - Robert Frost
