Re: save/reply single command
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:32:13PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 18:22]: > [...] > > When I save it is most often to a file specific to the message sender. > > So I might save a message from you to a file called "ptilopteri" and it > > would be appended to our previous communications. My reply would also > > be automatically saved to the end of the same file. > > > > In "ptilopteri" your message would appear before my reply. That is what > > I called "proper order". If I reply and later save, the order in the > > file is reversed. > > > > The order of messages in a file doesn't matter much if I read it with > > mutt -f "". But I've looked at enough mail files with less > > or edited them with vi, to appreciate having the messages in "proper > > order". > > So you are more interested in the "order" within the mbox file rather than > what an email client would present. You are changing horses and this > conversation would have been considerably briefer had you explained this. > I still see no value in your approach, but now understand what you are > saying. No, my primary interest is in a single command to "save, reply, delete". jl -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
Re: save/reply single command
* Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 18:22]: [...] > When I save it is most often to a file specific to the message sender. > So I might save a message from you to a file called "ptilopteri" and it > would be appended to our previous communications. My reply would also > be automatically saved to the end of the same file. > > In "ptilopteri" your message would appear before my reply. That is what > I called "proper order". If I reply and later save, the order in the > file is reversed. > > The order of messages in a file doesn't matter much if I read it with > mutt -f "". But I've looked at enough mail files with less > or edited them with vi, to appreciate having the messages in "proper > order". So you are more interested in the "order" within the mbox file rather than what an email client would present. You are changing horses and this conversation would have been considerably briefer had you explained this. I still see no value in your approach, but now understand what you are saying. > mairix sounds interesting, thanks for mentioning it. Used to not work on mbox but several years ago was revised and I have never looked back. It still has some rough edges but not enough to worry about. If you use mairix, you have no need to be concerned about the "order" within the mbox files. The order would be that which *you* direct mutt or other mail client to observe as mairix delivers what you define in an mbox file and anything you do to those msgs do not change the originals. The location of the originals is also provided within the mairix formed mbox file. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: save/reply single command
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:45:21PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 16:56]: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:46:30PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > * Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 14:26]: > > > > If I want to save a message and reply to the sender > > > > it is a multi-step operation. "s", which saves the > > > > message, deletes it from the inbox, and indexes to > > > > the next unread message. Then I have to return to > > > > the deleted message and hit "r". > > > > > > > > Does anyone have a way to do this in one operation? > > > > > > Not in one, nor would I prefer, but you can eliminate a step by replying > > > first and then saving, or using something like procmail to direct the msg > > > to your "save" destination and reply from there. That would eliminate > > > *all* the extra steps. > > > > Minor reason to not do it in reply -> save order. The physical > > order in the mbox-style file would be out of order. > > When you save or move a msg from one directory to another does not change > the delivery date. > > > Doesn't matter if it is only viewed with a threaded reader like mutt. > > But in case other tools are used, like text searches, I'd prefer to keep > > the "proper order". > > I guess "proper order" is undefined. I sort by thread on rec'd time-date > and nothing changes on moving or saving except the mbox file time. The > msg is an entity within the mbox file, not a stand-a-lone file. Guess I > fail to understand your needs or you fail to understand mbox. I use > mairix to find and present and it presents in a directory sorted as I > demand, thread by date-time. When I save it is most often to a file specific to the message sender. So I might save a message from you to a file called "ptilopteri" and it would be appended to our previous communications. My reply would also be automatically saved to the end of the same file. In "ptilopteri" your message would appear before my reply. That is what I called "proper order". If I reply and later save, the order in the file is reversed. The order of messages in a file doesn't matter much if I read it with mutt -f "". But I've looked at enough mail files with less or edited them with vi, to appreciate having the messages in "proper order". mairix sounds interesting, thanks for mentioning it. Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
* On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote: > The messages seem to all have message-ids in the form > > bunchofch...@m.something.com You'll need to be much more specific if you want help writing a matching regex. Is "something" a semantic variable or literal? What does "bunchofchars" look like? >From all I can gather it sounds like they're generating totally legit and normalized message-ids. Any message-id that someone out here provides you will match false positives as well. That's why we need specific examples to help. > They also have email ids in the form > > Idiot Spammer By "email id" do you mean address? Again, that looks completely normal. Matching it will require examples. > > However if your spammer's message-ids are actually showing an RFC822 > > address format, you might try: > > > > ~i '\S+\s+<\S+@\S+>' > > > > I'm assuming your regex library supports \s, \S. PCRE does. Otherwise > > you could try > > > > ~i '[^ ]+ +<[^ ]+@[^ ]+>' > > You lost me on these two regexps. What's going on here? That matches the following: [text][whitespace]<[text]@[text]> This is what an email address should look like, but a message ID should have only the part. (It should not have leading text + whitespace.) -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: save/reply single command
* Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 16:56]: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:46:30PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > * Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 14:26]: > > > If I want to save a message and reply to the sender > > > it is a multi-step operation. "s", which saves the > > > message, deletes it from the inbox, and indexes to > > > the next unread message. Then I have to return to > > > the deleted message and hit "r". > > > > > > Does anyone have a way to do this in one operation? > > > > Not in one, nor would I prefer, but you can eliminate a step by replying > > first and then saving, or using something like procmail to direct the msg > > to your "save" destination and reply from there. That would eliminate > > *all* the extra steps. > > Minor reason to not do it in reply -> save order. The physical > order in the mbox-style file would be out of order. When you save or move a msg from one directory to another does not change the delivery date. > Doesn't matter if it is only viewed with a threaded reader like mutt. > But in case other tools are used, like text searches, I'd prefer to keep > the "proper order". I guess "proper order" is undefined. I sort by thread on rec'd time-date and nothing changes on moving or saving except the mbox file time. The msg is an entity within the mbox file, not a stand-a-lone file. Guess I fail to understand your needs or you fail to understand mbox. I use mairix to find and present and it presents in a directory sorted as I demand, thread by date-time. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: save/reply single command
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:46:30PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 14:26]: > > If I want to save a message and reply to the sender > > it is a multi-step operation. "s", which saves the > > message, deletes it from the inbox, and indexes to > > the next unread message. Then I have to return to > > the deleted message and hit "r". > > > > Does anyone have a way to do this in one operation? > > Not in one, nor would I prefer, but you can eliminate a step by replying > first and then saving, or using something like procmail to direct the msg > to your "save" destination and reply from there. That would eliminate > *all* the extra steps. Minor reason to not do it in reply -> save order. The physical order in the mbox-style file would be out of order. Doesn't matter if it is only viewed with a threaded reader like mutt. But in case other tools are used, like text searches, I'd prefer to keep the "proper order". -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 16:17:00 -0500, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote: > but mutt also processes backslashes when it is parsing the command line > defining the expresion -- so you may need to quote the backslashes. (Here's the explaination of this topic from the mutt manual, near the bottom of the "Pattern Modifier" section: Special attention has to be payed when using regular expressions inside of patterns. Specifically, Mutt's parser for these patterns will strip one level of backslash (\), which is normally used for quoting. If it is your intention to use a backslash in the regular expression, you will need to use two backslashes instead (\\). ) Nathan
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
Hi, answers within On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:53:50PM -0600, David Champion wrote: > * On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote: > > > > > In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and > > > .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods > > > is escaped (\.com) the other is not. > > > > > > Both literal periods should be the same (escaped or not escaped) > > > and the meta-period should be the opposite. > > > > Thanks. If I understood what you said and did this right then that did match > > the spammers but is still killing google mail. > > I'm not sure what exactly you need to match - your example in the first > mail looks like a paraphrasing, so not sure what parts are variable. The messages seem to all have message-ids in the form bunchofch...@m.something.com They also have email ids in the form Idiot Spammer > However if your spammer's message-ids are actually showing an RFC822 > address format, you might try: > > ~i '\S+\s+<\S+@\S+>' > > I'm assuming your regex library supports \s, \S. PCRE does. Otherwise > you could try > > ~i '[^ ]+ +<[^ ]+@[^ ]+>' You lost me on these two regexps. What's going on here? > Also note the "spam" command, which can be used to classify spam. It's > normally for matching spam scores from spam filters, but you could use > it instead to add these messages as high-scoring spam. This allows you > to treat all spam in aggregate, distinctly from other scoring. > > http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#spam Thanks, I looked over this when I first asked about killfiling but I decided scoring was enough for my purposes. My only problem is not understanding how to match these bastards. All of the other miscreants have already been successfully killfiled. Thanks a lot, /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 20:39:16 +, John Long wrote: > score '~i @m\..*\.com'- > > matches on > > Message-ID: <5486ad9f.8186460a.0aee.1...@mx.google.com> You want the actual regex to contain backslashed period characters... but mutt also processes backslashes when it is parsing the command line defining the expresion -- so you may need to quote the backslashes. In other words, does this work? score '~i @m\\..*\\.com' - Alternatively, you might be able to use this form to specify a literal "." character without the need for backslashes: score '~i @m[.].*[.]com' - Nathan
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
* On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote: > > > In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and > > .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods > > is escaped (\.com) the other is not. > > > > Both literal periods should be the same (escaped or not escaped) > > and the meta-period should be the opposite. > > Thanks. If I understood what you said and did this right then that did match > the spammers but is still killing google mail. I'm not sure what exactly you need to match - your example in the first mail looks like a paraphrasing, so not sure what parts are variable. However if your spammer's message-ids are actually showing an RFC822 address format, you might try: ~i '\S+\s+<\S+@\S+>' I'm assuming your regex library supports \s, \S. PCRE does. Otherwise you could try ~i '[^ ]+ +<[^ ]+@[^ ]+>' Also note the "spam" command, which can be used to classify spam. It's normally for matching spam scores from spam filters, but you could use it instead to add these messages as high-scoring spam. This allows you to treat all spam in aggregate, distinctly from other scoring. http://www.mutt.org/doc/devel/manual.html#spam -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote: > In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and > .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods > is escaped (\.com) the other is not. > > Both literal periods should be the same (escaped or not escaped) > and the meta-period should be the opposite. Thanks. If I understood what you said and did this right then that did match the spammers but is still killing google mail. score '~i @m\..*\.com' - matches on Message-ID: <5486ad9f.8186460a.0aee.1...@mx.google.com> Any ideas? Thanks. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On 09Dec2014 10:33, Chris Green wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 08Dec2014 22:04, Chris Green wrote: >Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times >over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and >transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. I would advocate trying offlineimap. I am a huge fan of having one's mail local to the machine for all the reasons you have outlined. [snip] Well, looking at offlineimap has lead me to notmuch as well which has got me thinking down those lines too! :-) However, for me, moving to offlineimap involves quite a bit of reconfiguration work as I currently use mbox and I don't have an IMAP server running on the machine where the E-Mails initially get delivered. You can probably install dovecot on the main machine easily. If the remote machine is personal (you desktop machine, yes?) you could configure its IMAP and POP services to listen only on localhost for security; use an ssh port forward to gain remote access to them. If you choose offlineimap for bidirectional mirroring then you have the maildir conversion issue to consider. Note that maildirs do take more disc space due to the separation of messages into individual files. My personal practice is presently to use maildirs for most "live" folders and to use mbox for archival folders. Offlineimap does not need to mirror all your folders; it can manage an arbitrary subset. Then the primary change is to tell dovecot to use maildirs (and to convert your mail folders). For dovecot, the dovecot.conf file wants the mail_location setting configured, for example: mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir which says to use maildir and to look for the user's folders in ~/Maildir. Mutt will cope automatically for existing folders, though you may want to tell it to make maildirs by default for new folders: set mbox_type=maildir Then there's mbox to maildir conversion. Tedious. There are ways to automate that. The simplest may to script mutt itself. Have a look at my mboxify script: https://bitbucket.org/cameron_simpson/css/src/tip/bin/mboxify which I am using to progressively turn my archive folders into mboxes, and reverse it. It has a bunch of checks, but you could pull out the core invocation of mutt towards the bottom of the script and invert it to convert an mbox into a maildir. Cheers, Cameron Simpson Your reality is lies and balderdash, and I'm glad to say that I have no grasp of it. - Baron Munchausen
Re: save/reply single command
* Jon LaBadie [12-09-14 14:26]: > If I want to save a message and reply to the sender > it is a multi-step operation. "s", which saves the > message, deletes it from the inbox, and indexes to > the next unread message. Then I have to return to > the deleted message and hit "r". > > Does anyone have a way to do this in one operation? Not in one, nor would I prefer, but you can eliminate a step by replying first and then saving, or using something like procmail to direct the msg to your "save" destination and reply from there. That would eliminate *all* the extra steps. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
save/reply single command
If I want to save a message and reply to the sender it is a multi-step operation. "s", which saves the message, deletes it from the inbox, and indexes to the next unread message. Then I have to return to the deleted message and hit "r". Does anyone have a way to do this in one operation? Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:04:26PM +, Chris Green wrote: > > Hello, Chris, > > > > What I do is that at work, I mount my home mail folder using sshfs. That > > way, I > > can use my local copies of mutt, xpdf, etc. With large messages, it can get > > slow, sometimes, but it does save some time. > > > Yes, I guess that's one way of doing it, not too difficult to automate > using a script. I could simply mount my ~/.mutt and my ~/Mail > directories and run mutt on the laptop (which is what I'm always using > when away from home). Slow with mbox I fear though, I might have to > change to Maildir to make it usable. > > Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times > over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and > transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. My setup consists on downloading all my email via getmail onto my local machine, with regular updates via cron, and posting via msmtpqueue. It harkens back to a time when internet access wasn't always a given for me, and I like how it works now, so... -- Eduardo Alvarez "Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, moriturus sum" -- Rincewind The Wizzard pgpGn7F97azY3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:38:18PM +, Chris Green wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:30:46AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > * Chris Green [12-08-14 10:21]: > > > E.g. if I want to view an HTML E-Mail in Firefox (default browser) > > > instead of within mutt (using lynx) can I just do 'v' followed by > > > selecting the HTML attachment as I would when running mutt locally on > > > the machine where mail is hosted? > > I work somewhat similarily. I store all mail on my local box and maintain > > a tmux session which I access remotely via ssh -X. > Yes, that's the alternative (to IMAP) really. However a lot of my > remote locations are very remote and have slow connections, running a > browser remotely would be unusably slow and similarly NFS would be > messy and insecure. You could also look at tools like offlineimap or imapsync https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OfflineIMAP
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:19:55PM +, Chris Green wrote: > At the moment to access my mail remotely I ssh into the server and run > mutt. This works well in general but there are some disadvantages, in > particular the 'v' command to access and view HTML, PDF and other [...] > > So, I'm wondering if using IMAP would make my life easier. I would > run Dovecot I expect. If I do this do things become more transparent > to a remote mutt? Just as a data point I'll note that I use both methods on a daily basis. As you guessed, aside from the attachment situation there isn't much difference. At home I use ssh and run mutt on my mail server. When I have to access attachments I use sshfs to access my homedir on the server. At work I use IMAP (actually IMAPS) because the IT department uses Microsoft Exchange as their mail server. There are some annoying issues with how Exchange's IMAP module sometimes handles TNEF messages sent by Outlook users, but that's something you wouldn't need to deal with if you're running your IMAP server on Linux. In the IMAP situation I can still edit messages in my inbox, link/unlink threads, move messages between folders including back and forth between IMAP folders and local maildir directories, and so on. One case where IMAP might be a downside is if you often have to search the message bodies, since I think they aren't cached on the mutt side and will have to be retrieved over IMAP each time you do a search. The headers do get cached by mutt. -Dave Dodge/dodo...@dododge.net
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:42:49AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > If we all misunderstood and you have multiple instances of mutt running and > > want to be able to access your mail from any of them then use POP and leave > > the email on the server. Are you forced to use IMAP? > > > I currently read my E-Mails (at different times, not simultaneously) > using mutt on:- > > The desktop Linux system which is also where Postfix runs to > receive my E-Mail. > > My laptop running Linux, sometimes on the LAN with the above > desktop, sometimes out and about connected by someone's home WiFi > or a 3G connection. > > Rarely, but occasionally, on someone else's system. > > The reason I'd use IMAP rather than POP3 is that I have mail filtering > running on the desktop server. There's a custom script that delivers > mailing list E-Mails (in particular) to separate mailboxes. I want to > be able to see these when I read my E-Mail remotely. Thus I'd simply > do everything remotely using IMAP, not store anything on the laptop. If you paint yourself into a corner by not understanding what you are doing it is much harder for anybody to answer your questions. It seems you are hell-bent on misunderstanding things and have already decided on an incorrect unnecessarily, complicated conclusion. Mail filtering works independent of POP or IMAP. Delivery to spool is independent of POP or IMAP. The only practical difference between POP and IMAP is at the client level. IMAP syncs in real time. If you delete a message in IMAP it is gone from the server. If you use POP you can set things up so that messages are left on the server for you to access from other clients. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:36:48AM +, Chris Green wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:56:04AM +, John Long wrote: > > > > If I understood you then yes, but the local machine as far as mutt is > > > > concerned is the machine where mutt is running [your remote system], not > > > > where you are running [your ssh session from, your local system]. All > > > > mutt's working data is where mutt runs, as in all normal apps. > > > > > > > Exactly. I'm sitting using my laptop in France (for example) and I > > > run mutt on the laptop using IMAP to access the E-Mails on my mail > > > server machine at home. > > > > Are you saying you can host a mail server but you can't understand the > > difference between running Mutt on a local or remote system? That's > > difficult to fathom. > > > > > So, when I use 'v' to view an HTML E-Mail it stores the file in /tmp on > > > the laptop and points my laptop browser at it to view it? > > > > Check and see? > > That's not so easy! I don't currently have an IMAP server for mutt to > connect to, hence > > > > > This was really my original question! :-) > > > > If so then you had no question at all. It's obvious Mutt will save the file > > on the system where mutt is running. It cannot work any other way and this > > has absolutely nothing to do with IMAP or POP. > > > It could perfectly well use IMAP and save the file somewhere in the > IMAP hierarchy on the remote system. No, this is not the way Mutt works. It has nothing to do with IMAP or POP. The only practical difference is with IMAP what's on the server is synced with your client. If you delete it, it's deleted on the server. With POP you can intentionally leave things on the server or delete them when read. > > I believe everyone understood from the beginning of this thread you were > > ssh-ing to a remote box and running Mutt on the remote machine. All the > > answers until now have been based on that. > > > Yes, and using IMAP is an *alternative* approach to reading E-Mail > remotely. No it is not. It is a mail protocol. > > > OK, it has to download the file so won't be instant but at least it > > > works without any extra configuration or commands (except the extra > > > complexity, if any, of using IMAP). > > > > I must have missed a few posts. This seems out of context. > > > I'm trying to compare the convenience/ease of doing what I do at the > moment (ssh to remote, run mutt there) and running mutt on the local > laptop and using IMAP. It doesn't matter whether you use IMAP or POP. It matters where mutt runs. > > If you think that's slow then how do you think an SSH filesystem over the > > same connection will work? Sounds like a terribly bad idea. > > > The trouble is that Firefox via X transfers vast amounts of data to > continuously update the screen, there's no attempt at efficiency. The > ssh filesystem won't have to transfer anything like the same amoount > of data. That's not the point. What is more important to you, having a web page rendered properly or having your file system in good shape? Anyway this whole thing is unnecessary. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP - my conclusion/solution
Thanks everyone for all the ideas and feedback. I *think* I have a solution that will work for me. I'll change the default mutt temporary directory to something that I can mount easily on the laptop using sshfs, as long as this has a unique name that can be the same on the desktop server and on the laptop then files viewed using mutt should be in the 'right place' on both systems. I just need to write a wrapper to mount and unmount the directory when mutt is run on the laptop (or I could just mount it whenever I connect I suppose). This requires minimal reconfiguration - no IMAP server, no changes to my mailbox format - and fixes my current niggles (I think/hope!). Again, thank you everyone for all your help. -- Chris Green
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:57:33AM +, John Long wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:33:05AM +, Chris Green wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > > On 08Dec2014 22:04, Chris Green wrote: > > > >Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times > > > >over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and > > > >transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. > > > > > > I would advocate trying offlineimap. I am a huge fan of having one's > > > mail local to the machine for all the reasons you have outlined. > > > > > [snip] > > > > Well, looking at offlineimap has lead me to notmuch as well which has > > got me thinking down those lines too! :-) > > > > However, for me, moving to offlineimap involves quite a bit of > > reconfiguration work as I currently use mbox and I don't have an IMAP > > server running on the machine where the E-Mails initially get > > delivered. > > > > So I just need to decide which of many possible routes will serve me > > best. > > If we all misunderstood and you have multiple instances of mutt running and > want to be able to access your mail from any of them then use POP and leave > the email on the server. Are you forced to use IMAP? > I currently read my E-Mails (at different times, not simultaneously) using mutt on:- The desktop Linux system which is also where Postfix runs to receive my E-Mail. My laptop running Linux, sometimes on the LAN with the above desktop, sometimes out and about connected by someone's home WiFi or a 3G connection. Rarely, but occasionally, on someone else's system. The reason I'd use IMAP rather than POP3 is that I have mail filtering running on the desktop server. There's a custom script that delivers mailing list E-Mails (in particular) to separate mailboxes. I want to be able to see these when I read my E-Mail remotely. Thus I'd simply do everything remotely using IMAP, not store anything on the laptop. -- Chris Green
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:56:04AM +, John Long wrote: > > > If I understood you then yes, but the local machine as far as mutt is > > > concerned is the machine where mutt is running [your remote system], not > > > where you are running [your ssh session from, your local system]. All > > > mutt's working data is where mutt runs, as in all normal apps. > > > > > Exactly. I'm sitting using my laptop in France (for example) and I > > run mutt on the laptop using IMAP to access the E-Mails on my mail > > server machine at home. > > Are you saying you can host a mail server but you can't understand the > difference between running Mutt on a local or remote system? That's > difficult to fathom. > > > So, when I use 'v' to view an HTML E-Mail it stores the file in /tmp on > > the laptop and points my laptop browser at it to view it? > > Check and see? That's not so easy! I don't currently have an IMAP server for mutt to connect to, hence > > > This was really my original question! :-) > > If so then you had no question at all. It's obvious Mutt will save the file > on the system where mutt is running. It cannot work any other way and this > has absolutely nothing to do with IMAP or POP. > It could perfectly well use IMAP and save the file somewhere in the IMAP hierarchy on the remote system. > I believe everyone understood from the beginning of this thread you were > ssh-ing to a remote box and running Mutt on the remote machine. All the > answers until now have been based on that. > Yes, and using IMAP is an *alternative* approach to reading E-Mail remotely. > > OK, it has to download the file so won't be instant but at least it > > works without any extra configuration or commands (except the extra > > complexity, if any, of using IMAP). > > I must have missed a few posts. This seems out of context. > I'm trying to compare the convenience/ease of doing what I do at the moment (ssh to remote, run mutt there) and running mutt on the local laptop and using IMAP. It seems as if IMAP will overcome a couple of the niggles of ssh/mutt but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra hassle of running an IMAP server and putting up with the extra work (not much but there is a bit) of using mutt with IMAP. > > > > No, as I said I just tried it and it doesn't work because Firefox is > > > > too clever and uses the local Firefox rather than the remote one so the > > > > file is in the wrong place. > > > > > > Firefox is POS technology, but depending on the version you can start it > > > not > > > to use your local/running instance. try firefox --no-remote and look > > > around > > > on the web if that doesn't do it. I have run into this several times with > > > network firefox etc and I have it working. > > > > > Yes, I've done it in the past when I was at work and really needed to > > view something that was only accessible from the browser on my home > > machine. Even across a fairly quick UK only internet connection it > > was horrendously slow. > > If you think that's slow then how do you think an SSH filesystem over the > same connection will work? Sounds like a terribly bad idea. > The trouble is that Firefox via X transfers vast amounts of data to continuously update the screen, there's no attempt at efficiency. The ssh filesystem won't have to transfer anything like the same amoount of data. -- Chris Green
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:11:53AM +, Chris Green wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:07:10AM +, John Long wrote: > > > > I don't see how IMAP helps. What exactly is the difference in terms of > > > > how > > > > you read mail and where the apps run as opposed to POP? The only thing > > > > IMAP > > > > does it make you rely on a remote mail server. I never use IMAP unless > > > > they > > > > don't serve POP. I know one mail provider that doesn't honor POP delete > > > > requests so to avoid leaving 100,000 emails on their server that I can't > > > > delete I use IMAP with them. Everywhere else, POP. I'd rather rely on > > > > my own > > > > email storage. > > > > > > > I wondered if, when using IMAP, mutt will store the temporary HTML for > > > passing to Firefox on the local machine rather than the remote > > > machine. One would expect it to somehow. This has nothing to do with IMAP. It has to do with how apps work. I'll clarify within my own comments: > > If I understood you then yes, but the local machine as far as mutt is > > concerned is the machine where mutt is running [your remote system], not > > where you are running [your ssh session from, your local system]. All > > mutt's working data is where mutt runs, as in all normal apps. > > > Exactly. I'm sitting using my laptop in France (for example) and I > run mutt on the laptop using IMAP to access the E-Mails on my mail > server machine at home. Are you saying you can host a mail server but you can't understand the difference between running Mutt on a local or remote system? That's difficult to fathom. > So, when I use 'v' to view an HTML E-Mail it stores the file in /tmp on > the laptop and points my laptop browser at it to view it? Check and see? > This was really my original question! :-) If so then you had no question at all. It's obvious Mutt will save the file on the system where mutt is running. It cannot work any other way and this has absolutely nothing to do with IMAP or POP. I believe everyone understood from the beginning of this thread you were ssh-ing to a remote box and running Mutt on the remote machine. All the answers until now have been based on that. > OK, it has to download the file so won't be instant but at least it > works without any extra configuration or commands (except the extra > complexity, if any, of using IMAP). I must have missed a few posts. This seems out of context. > > > No, as I said I just tried it and it doesn't work because Firefox is > > > too clever and uses the local Firefox rather than the remote one so the > > > file is in the wrong place. > > > > Firefox is POS technology, but depending on the version you can start it not > > to use your local/running instance. try firefox --no-remote and look around > > on the web if that doesn't do it. I have run into this several times with > > network firefox etc and I have it working. > > > Yes, I've done it in the past when I was at work and really needed to > view something that was only accessible from the browser on my home > machine. Even across a fairly quick UK only internet connection it > was horrendously slow. If you think that's slow then how do you think an SSH filesystem over the same connection will work? Sounds like a terribly bad idea. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:33:05AM +, Chris Green wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > On 08Dec2014 22:04, Chris Green wrote: > > >Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times > > >over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and > > >transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. > > > > I would advocate trying offlineimap. I am a huge fan of having one's > > mail local to the machine for all the reasons you have outlined. > > > [snip] > > Well, looking at offlineimap has lead me to notmuch as well which has > got me thinking down those lines too! :-) > > However, for me, moving to offlineimap involves quite a bit of > reconfiguration work as I currently use mbox and I don't have an IMAP > server running on the machine where the E-Mails initially get > delivered. > > So I just need to decide which of many possible routes will serve me > best. If we all misunderstood and you have multiple instances of mutt running and want to be able to access your mail from any of them then use POP and leave the email on the server. Are you forced to use IMAP? /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 08Dec2014 22:04, Chris Green wrote: > >Doesn't anyone use IMAP? I must admit when I tried it (a few times > >over the years, but not very recently) it never felt quite as easy and > >transparent as using mutt on a local mail spool. > > I would advocate trying offlineimap. I am a huge fan of having one's > mail local to the machine for all the reasons you have outlined. > [snip] Well, looking at offlineimap has lead me to notmuch as well which has got me thinking down those lines too! :-) However, for me, moving to offlineimap involves quite a bit of reconfiguration work as I currently use mbox and I don't have an IMAP server running on the machine where the E-Mails initially get delivered. So I just need to decide which of many possible routes will serve me best. -- Chris Green
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:07:10AM +, John Long wrote: > > > I don't see how IMAP helps. What exactly is the difference in terms of how > > > you read mail and where the apps run as opposed to POP? The only thing > > > IMAP > > > does it make you rely on a remote mail server. I never use IMAP unless > > > they > > > don't serve POP. I know one mail provider that doesn't honor POP delete > > > requests so to avoid leaving 100,000 emails on their server that I can't > > > delete I use IMAP with them. Everywhere else, POP. I'd rather rely on my > > > own > > > email storage. > > > > > I wondered if, when using IMAP, mutt will store the temporary HTML for > > passing to Firefox on the local machine rather than the remote > > machine. One would expect it to somehow. > > If I understood you then yes, but the local machine as far as mutt is > concerned is the machine where mutt is running, not where you are > running. All mutt's working data is where mutt runs, as in all normal apps. > Exactly. I'm sitting using my laptop in France (for example) and I run mutt on the laptop using IMAP to access the E-Mails on my mail server machine at home. So, when I use 'v' to view an HTML E-Mail it stores the file in /tmp on the laptop and points my laptop browser at it to view it? This was really my original question! :-) OK, it has to download the file so won't be instant but at least it works without any extra configuration or commands (except the extra complexity, if any, of using IMAP). > > No, as I said I just tried it and it doesn't work because Firefox is > > too clever and uses the local Firefox rather than the remote one so the > > file is in the wrong place. > > Firefox is POS technology, but depending on the version you can start it not > to use your local/running instance. try firefox --no-remote and look around > on the web if that doesn't do it. I have run into this several times with > network firefox etc and I have it working. > Yes, I've done it in the past when I was at work and really needed to view something that was only accessible from the browser on my home machine. Even across a fairly quick UK only internet connection it was horrendously slow. -- Chris Green
Re: Stupid regexp tricks
Thank you I will try this. Waiting for new spam to show up. > In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and > .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods > is escaped (\.com) the other is not. > > Both literal periods should be the same (escaped or not escaped) > and the meta-period should be the opposite.
Re: Some fairly simple-minded questions about using mutt with IMAP
Hi Cameron, On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > For me this is all theoretical so far as I have not had time. But it is a > real issue I need to address, and I'd like to hear of your efforts if you > try this route. I have been doing this for some years now, with great success I might add. I use a combination of OfflineIMAP[1] (syncing over IMAP), Notmuch[2] (indexing), and Mutt-kz[3] (a mutt fork with notmuch support). This is my chain: - Sync with OfflineIMAP - Call "notmuch new" from OfflineIMAP postsynchook - Read and send emails with Mutt-kz Notmuch offers a few pre and post hooks, I address my regular tagging needs in these hooks. The rest I do while reading the emails. Easy enough :). I also use a (notmuch) search based address book[4] with Mutt. In fact, the latest notmuch release also added a notmuch-address command. Let me know if you are interested, I can share more details. Cheers, Footnotes: [1] http://offlineimap.org/ [2] http://notmuchmail.org/ [3] http://kzak.redcrew.org/doku.php?id=mutt:start [4] https://github.com/domo141/nottoomuch -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.
