Is there a way to tell Mutt to never PGP-sign messages to a certain
address, but continue to sign them otherwise, other than just remembering
to hit pf before sending?
msg25435/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This one time, at band camp, David T-G wrote:
Do you mean something like
send-hook . set pgp_autosign
send-hook . unset pgp_autoencrypt
send-hook (addr1|addr2) unset pgp_autosign
send-hook (addr3) set pgp_autoencrypt
You rule, David. Works like a friggin' charm.
Now if you guys would just submit your keys to the public keyservers...
msg25439/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This one time, at band camp, David T-G wrote:
Nope; I sign everything except for a few special cases, so I just use
send-hooks, and I just gave him my example and let him convert to folders
on his own. Excercises for the student and all :-)
No need; I sign everything except for two
This one time, at band camp, Simon White wrote:
Ahh yes there is. L (list-reply). Or whatever you map it to in your muttrcs.
Cool.
Except it doesn't work with any mailing list I've tried.
Including, for example, this one...
msg25508/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
Not for list-reply. The important thing to make this command work is
letting mutt know which mails are from lists, using the 'subscribe' and
'lists' commands.
Bleargh. What a pain in the ass. Most of my mailing lists identify
themselves
This one time, at band camp, David T-G wrote:
So, since lists are so easy to recognize, have a script that generates
mailing list names from your directories and put something like
Mailing lists aren't easy to recognize, at least when they don't
put in a header, but you're forgetting that
This one time, at band camp, Dave Pearson wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't use list-reply to tell mutt
that an email is from a mailing list, I use list-reply to tell mutt that I
want to respond to the list it was from (instead of to the author of the
email, or
This one time, at band camp, David T-G wrote:
BTW, subscribe is a superset of lists; you'll only need one for lists on
which you are and then one for lists on which you aren't.
Yeah, figured that one out after I posted. :-)
Great. Start coding. Post the result. TIA HAND
Trust me, you
Ok, I've got a send-hook like this:
send-hook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]) set pgp_create_traditional
However, it still makes the MIME-type application:pgp.
Is there a way to make it lie and call them text?
Crackmonkey bounces funky MIME-types.
msg25576/pgp0.pgp
Description:
This one time, at band camp, Justin R. Miller wrote:
You need to either use a macro to pipe to gpg, or you need to try the
Outlook compatibility patch. I believe that the patch was going to be
rolled into the main distribution?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but it seems to me that
This one time, at band camp, David Champion wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of hard-coding mutt to recognize
mailing lists according to commonly-observed trends that aren't
specified by a reasonably standard standard. There are many ways
to identify a mailing list. Mutt shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
very large mailboxes. My debian-users mailbox contains some 3500
messages. It takes about 60 seconds to open.
Are there any tricks to speed this up, some caching mechanism or
something.
This one time, at band camp, MuttER wrote:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe
And YOU, of course, will never request aid on this list, or present a
query someone else thinks is inappropriate/unnecessary. I HOPE.
That was a
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patched version works very nicely. Opening the 3500 messages
mailbox took 79 seconds with the prepacked mutt. It takes less then a
second with the patched version.
Guess I was wrong, then; switching to the digest wouldn't have been
begin quoting what Claus Assmann said on Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 04:02:53PM -0800:
I asked about this when 1.3.25 came out and got the answer that
this should be fixed / will be looking into it. However, 1.3.28
still can't be configured without iconv. Any chance for a change?
Pardon my
begin quoting what Christopher Swingley said on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:33:21AM -0900:
A brief search on Google identified this as an SMIME attachment.
Is this something akin to a GPG signature? Is there some package I
Sounds like it's time for a less-brief search on Google.
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:39:23PM -0500:
HTH HAND and none of this is tested :-)
Acronymize that last one. :-)
msg25779/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:08:56PM -0500:
% Is mbox the same as Unix format?
Yes, mbox is the same mailbox format that you know from years and years
ago. Each message is delimited by ^From_ (a newline, From, and a
Well, technically, I don't think UNIX
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:21:23PM +0100:
you cannot bind two commands to one key. period.
(which command should mutt execute then? exactly.)
The first one bound, followed by the second one?
msg25794/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Daniel Bye said on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:00:15PM +:
for Outlookers, and I seem to spend a _lot_ of time sending mail to folks using
Outlook.
I spend a lot of time sending mail to Outlook users, too, but it all
just says this:
If you are reading this, it means
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:52:42PM +0100:
Can I convince mutt to ignore the In-Reply-To
header if there is a References header?
no, i dont think there is an option for that yet.
I guess he could use procmail to remove the In-Reply-To header if there
begin quoting what David T-G said on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 07:28:07AM -0500:
See the original mail; he already begged to not go that route because of
all of his old mail that would need reprocessing.
man perl
:-)
msg25859/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Michael Elkins said on Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:25:46PM -0800:
This converstion comes up every once in a while and devolves into my
programming language is better than yours ultimately.
Just put an INTERCAL interpreter in there.
Or, better yet, befunge. Then you can say
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:48:28PM +0200:
Umm... as I saw my mail posted here, Mutt told me that the following
data is signed and all the other PGP stuff. So - am I doing it correctly
after all? :-)
No, you're not. Look at the contents of your mail in
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:32:41PM -0800:
and hopefully this won't set off a long discussion (yet again), but many
believe that it's generally silly (and unnecessary) to sign posts to a
public mailing list most of the time.
Many believe the Earth is
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 12:47:14AM +0100:
If you object to my signatures, procmail is easily capable of routing all
of my emails to /dev/null.
I don't use Procmail. What now?
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
msg25951/pgp0.pgp
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:52:56AM +0200:
ARGH! Of course I forgot to sign it. :-/ As I said, I am very, very
sorry for all the inconvenience and waste of bandwith from my behalf.
I hope I doesn't end up in everyone's killfile... trying to learn
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:23:57AM +0100:
Let's not forget that your key is worthless unless signed by somebody
we know already.
Not entirely worthless. For instance, if you receive lots of emails
from me in lots of fora, all signed, then you may
begin quoting what Robert Conde said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:20:46PM -0500:
When I send a pgp encrypted message to someone, I can't read it in my
fcc folder. I set the fcc_clear variable so that the FCC is stored
unencrypted. I read in some FAQ that it's possible to configure Mutt
Look at the man page; it doesn't say anything about the order of ignore
or unignore statements. It just says unignore is a list of exceptions to
the ignore statement(s).
That's the precedence; unignores are exceptions, they take precedence over
ignores no matter what.
man muttrc
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:09:42PM +0200:
Ah well, I've decided not to use signed mails in mailing lists if
there isn't any reason for me to do it. What matters, is, that PGP
works with my Mutt - whole other thing is, if I use it... ;-)
The same reasons
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:26:53PM +0100:
There are several things different between broadcasts and
point-to-point connection, as you sure know.
Yes. For instance, there are far more people who would be impacted by
a forgery. There are also far more
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:31:06PM +0200:
Yes, I know. At least this proves, that I managed to upset people
with my child walk of PGP signatures (I agree, I should've selected
more appropriate place for testing it for the first time); or would
I get a
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 08:47:42PM +0100:
I take it from this that you are in fact not interested in a
discussion, but in a flame war. Have fun!
I'm sorry, if you'll point out which of my statements was personally
insulting to you, I'll be glad to
begin quoting what Rob Reid said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 02:53:39PM -0500:
Derot-13? *grin* Where's Enrot then? ;-)
The correct answer, of course, is Houston.
msg25991/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Rob Reid said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 03:01:35PM -0500:
If mutt could pass variables like the current folder to the environment, then
this mutt needs a scripting language, but no, that's bloated, and
which one would we use? thread would probably recur less frequently.
It
begin quoting what Robert Conde said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 03:07:40PM -0500:
What would you suggest as an alternative?
Like I said, it's a tradeoff. If it's important that you be able to refer
back to the contents, encrypting to yourself is necessary.
If it's important that you NOT be able
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:42:09PM -0700:
Maybe I could set up a hook of some kind that hides X- headers for my
grandmother and nobody else?
Or list all of the obnoxious ones, and then set up procmail to strip them
out; that will work as a general
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 02:02:55PM -0700:
Hey, that's a good idea. But how do I strip headers in procmail?
Run stuff through sed, I suppose. I've never tried, but it should work.
msg26006/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:53:18PM -0700:
So long, suckers.
You're an evil bastard, Fezta. :-)
msg26007/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:12:41AM +0100:
Not that I know, but it is quite dangerous to talk about Outlook in the
context of mail clients.
Oh, it is a mail client, it's just not an Internet mail client.
At the very least, it doesn't read
begin quoting what Donna Koenig said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:39:39AM -0500:
Situation is:
We want to send out email that is html, but for those who only
accept or access text email, we wnat them to be able to open the email
also.
OK, let me see if I get this right:
You want to
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 07:58:17PM +0100:
At the very least, it doesn't read RFC1521-compliant mails as
recommended in the standard.
Which has status informational only.
Ok, first, wrong, it's standards-track, not informational.
However, it *IS* the
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:31:36PM -0700:
Well, it sounds an awful lot like Jessy to me, which is a decidedly
female name in Canada. I've never heard of a man named Jessy ;)
Jesse Owens. Jesse Ventura.
Insist on the same spelling? Ok. Jessy
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:44:26PM -0700:
Besides, I'm only doing it to Incredimail users. I mean, if they want to
accost me with tons of useless X- headers, I shouldn't have to put up with
them (the headers, not the people) :P
If you want elegant:
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:25:23PM -0700:
I'd rather just rip off all the useless headers with an elegant 3-line
procmail recipie than have to hide them all with 10 or 20 lines of
ignore statements.
You can have it both ways; use Procmail to
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:05:45PM -0700:
That brings us back to the first problem though: How do I ignore X-Nuke
without ignoring the other X- headers? (without using the huge mess
david posted).
ignore received x-nuke
msg26096/pgp0.pgp
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:34:48PM -0700:
ignore received x-nuke
There are other headers I want to hide though.
When I said have procmail prepend all the bad headers, I meant every
header you'd like to hide.
The only headers that I _want_ to see
begin quoting what Alan Batie said on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 02:03:24PM -0800:
first place. I discovered the fcc_clear option, which saves the message
unencrypted and have been living with that, but what I *really* want is to
save them encrypted to *me*.
Mutt doesn't do that, but PGP does.
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:04:14AM +0100:
Just wondering why 1524 is so important to you...
You lost me. To the best of my knowledge, I have never discussed
RFC1524 in this or any other mailing list, prior to this exchange.
RFC1521 is important to me
begin quoting what Simon White said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:55:29AM +:
I didn't think this list could be posted to by non members. I am now
going to have to find your address and copy-paste it up to the CC line.
No, you don't have to. You choose to.
Many people wouldn't.
IMHO,
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:31:52PM +0100:
like i said: mutt is *not* for everyone
All users suck. mutt is for users who suck less.
msg26149/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Simon White said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:41:05PM +:
Text based rules, but in Solaris you are stuck with CDE anyway, it's not
worth shit without CDE.
I've had luck in the past with GNOME, and evidently Sun doesn't
totally disagree, since they're moving to GNOME as
begin quoting what Matthias Weiss said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:26:43PM +0100:
What do I gain from this when I have 3 mailing list on one and another 4 lists
on the other account?
The ability to use mailing lists to help you solve problems without
committing ettiquette errors that cause
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 02:59:37PM -0700:
[0] This officially means that every single binary on my entire system
is GPL'd ;)
You don't have ps? What are you using instead?
msg26222/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:29:08PM -0700:
I don't use ps. Or any replacements.
Ok. Do you use vim?
msg26224/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:02:10PM -0800:
/home/william/procps-2.0.7/ps
ladd% head COPYING
GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
You quoted it right there; it's not GPL, it's LGPL.
I was yanking Rob's chain, because he's an evil
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 08:31:07PM +0100:
Just logged into a solaris box. Having set my prompt to 'user@machine'
it says that only root may run 'uname'. My response: 'exit'.
Did you by any chance have a -S in that uname call?
Because that's the only
begin quoting what Matthew D. Fuller said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:49:32AM -0600:
I think he actually means 'hostname', not 'uname'; hostname, on any sane
system, displays the hostname when called with no args, and tries to set
it (requiring root at THAT point) when it has args. Solaris
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:28:25AM -0500:
Yeah; that was a very funny time. Too bad NT5 was renamed to Win2000 and
announced just ONE DAY before the fantastic announcement of Solaris 7,
the Operating System Rushed Out The Door In Time To Have A Higher
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:55:08AM -0500:
% has been changed so that application/pgp is no longer used (although
% there's an x-mutt-action=pgp-sign flag in the content/type so that mutt
% knows it's signed). those changes are from Thomas Roessler.
I
begin quoting what mike ledoux said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:29:20PM -0500:
gpg: requesting key 57C3430B from wwwkeys.us.pgp.net ...
gpg: key 57C3430B: invalid subkey binding
gpg: key 57C3430B: no valid user IDs
gpg: this may be caused by a missing self-signature
Sign your key and
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:40:46PM -0500:
% Sign your key and re-submit it.
Better check what you have, too.
If my key wasn't signed, GPG wouldn't accept it.
msg26307/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what David T-G said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:55:19PM -0500:
No, no -- I meant that you had better check your copy of his key; as
shown, it works fine for me.
I don't have a copy of his key; GPG attempted to import it from the
keyserver, but the one on the keyserver didn't
begin quoting what Ricardo SIGNES said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:40:44PM -0500:
Except that Linux is only the kernel. Linux + GNU + some other files and
configuration is the OS. That, plus some applications is the distribution.
You're wrong.
msg26331/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 03:37:11AM +0100:
but - is there a way I can just *hide*
the pgp sig *completely* from view?
Do you still want to verify the sigs, or not?
If not, you could strip them with procmail.
msg26333/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
begin quoting what Magnus Bodin said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 06:29:44AM +0100:
Wouldn't it be a better solution to keep the whole sent-mail-folder
encrypted to myself using the open/close-hook-thingies in the
compressed-folders-patch?
Probably be easier to put ~/Mail on a cfs filesystem.
begin quoting what Martin Karlsson said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:36:32PM +0100:
And I get the same as David. I use 'keyserver pgp.mit.edu'.
But you should only have to upload to _one_ keyserver, right?
There's more than one keyserver network.
However, it's easier to ask somebody what
begin quoting what mike ledoux said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:27:37AM -0500:
and hand out an invalid key. This is a known problem in the keyserver
code. You can get a *valid* copy of my key from:
http://www.volta.dyndns.org/~mwl/pgpkey.asc
Yep, worked peachy. Thanks.
As stated
begin quoting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:11:12AM -0800:
always be right. But I have recieved some email where an RTF file
has a '.doc' extension and an 'application/msword' mime type (probably
because of the extension). Other than educating the other user,
what
begin quoting what David T-G said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 04:14:23PM -0500:
Are there just one or two, or are there a bunch, or does anyone really
know? Do the servers in a given network synchronize with each other, or
do even they have problems?
I think there are a few, and some of them
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 07:53:12AM +0100:
and i wonder whether there is a
way to make mutt's reply command
use the filtered text for quoting..
Ok, you want them to vanish for viewing, and vanish for quoting.
Why is it that you don't use procmail to
begin quoting what Patrik Modesto said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:24:42AM +0100:
I create new message, then to the first empty line under header i write
http://www.something.com and send this mail. This address is send as a
part of email's header and body of this mail is empty. Why? Is this
Just to throw a little fuel on the fire:
Look in the Sun training catalog, at how they define the products
themselves.
Solaris 8 Operating Environment.
Look at their web page:
http://www.sun.com/solaris/
They call it the same thing. Then do a uname -a on a Solaris 8 system:
SunOS chtsjs01
begin quoting what David Champion said on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:58:32PM -0600:
No, not really. It's marketing.
The definition of OS isn't marketing, it's Computer Science. It's
been presented. It agrees with what I said. Get over it.
msg26387/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what Michael Tatge said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:43:12PM +0100:
I'd like to have an extra keyring for this list.
What problem are you trying to solve?
msg26422/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
begin quoting what David T-G said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:34:59PM -0500:
ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like
every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that.
Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
X-Mailer is not
I applied the compressed folders patch, and it seemed to work.
mutt -v shows:
Mutt 1.3.28i (2002-03-13)
Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others.
Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'.
Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:54:39AM -0500:
Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but
X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled.
What standards are you talking about?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:05:22AM -0500:
:- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so?
sigh
RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards.
If you don't think so, stop using MIME, because it hasn't been adopted
as a Standard yet, despite
begin quoting what Dave Smith said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100:
You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the
pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing
My two cents:
Succumb. Inline sigs are annoying, and when you get a
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:37:49AM -0700:
just wondering why the non-standards-following option contains the word
traditional.
Because usage of PGP predates the establishment of standards.
helpfull and it sort of relates to mutt...what is the
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:58:17PM +0100:
My mistake. Same here. Solaris doesn't like the '-s' switch for
hostname. So I have to use 'hostname | cut ...' the get the short form.
uname -n
Works on both Linux and Solaris.
msg26487/pgp0.pgp
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:25:20PM +0100:
... but it doesn't help at all if people don't submit their key because
of paranoia.
What's most annoying are the folks who not only don't submit their
key, but they also don't put it on their web page, or they
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:02:23PM +0200:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:07:58:PM -0500 ShRen McMahon wrote:
^
Is that a stylistic choice, or is your config broken?
msg26501/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:20:32PM +0200:
It may sound funny, but I really saw some Linux guys talking about what
would be necessary to replace a kernel 'on the fly'. Not that it does
make lots of sence or is extraordinary usefull, but to some of them
begin quoting what Thomas Roessler said on Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:59:32PM +0200:
OpenPGP specifies application/pgp, but that breaks some MUAs that
don't follow the OpenPGP RFC.
Where does the OpenPGP RFC specify that?
Sorry, I mispoke; it was another standard that specified that, and it
begin quoting what Mark J. Reed said on Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:35:25PM -0500:
In cases where there was an even wider divergence between the
BSD and System V commands (the ps(1) command being the most infamous
example), you may find the BSD version in /usr/ucb (this is analogous to
but
begin quoting what Mark J. Reed said on Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:18:57AM -0500:
You can also put two 'w's on /usr/ucb/ps and get the full command line of
every process,
Nope; it has a cutoff after a certain number of characters, and there's
nothing you can do about it.
We ran into this
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:39:43AM +0200:
feature request denied.
macro index c change-folder!
That breaks ? for list functionality. It would be better to assign
it to another key:
macro index I change-folder!\r
Then get used to using I when you
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:06:14PM -0700:
a mime anyway so why not just add a pgp/mime part? is it even
possible to send an application/pgp message with an attachment?
No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil.
msg26729/pgp0.pgp
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700:
that this would be considered broken by today's standards. i
guess if i want mutt to handle things the same way for those of my
recipients who have to use outlook, i'm going to have to fix mutt or
has
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:02:59PM -0800:
taking the attitude of i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong
only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered.
Look where it got the Internet.
Sticking to documented RFCs, instead of
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:44:22PM -0700:
ok, i checked the archives and what i found was that people were
talking about dale's p_c_t patch. that does not do what outlook is
expecting w.r.t. attachments.
It does when I use it. What did you put
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:07:19AM -0500:
I totally agree with you. _Communicate_, that is the key word.
You signed that with S/MIME, with which OE also has a problem, agreeing
with someone whose position was basically don't use PGP/MIME because
Outlook
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:29:16AM -0700:
it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the
p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want
to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500:
I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read
you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:58:21AM -0700:
that is correct. p_c_t works fine for a simple email message without
any attachments; however, as soon as you add an attachment i think
mutt figures you're gonna send mime anyway so why not do the pgp that
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:01:18AM -0700:
not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email
from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an
inline sig from mutt? or...?
I meant an inline sig from Mutt, but
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
