Re: function executed when entering a box
* Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-10-14 00:40:18 +0200]: * Bernard Massot [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-10-12 23:41]: mutt default's behavior is : - if the box has no messages matching ~N or ~O, go on last message in the bottom of the index (right for me) - if there are some messages matching ~N, go on the 1st message matching ~N (right for me) - if there are some messages matching ~O, go on the 1st message matching ~O (right for me) - if there are both messages matching ~N and ~O, go on the 1st message matching ~N (that's what I don't like, I'd like it to go on the 1st message matching ~O) i'd limit to (~N|~O) and then jump to the first entry - but this might be either ~N or ~O - depending on the case. anyway, i suppose this requires a change of the code... Hmm...not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, here, but I think what he's really asking for (whether he knows it or not, hehe) is a function next-new-or-unread (in quotes because there is no such function (yet)). Just saying, because it sounds like he's asking for a feature I've silently wanted for a long time. :) Assuming this is true, there are two ways I found to solve this problem (although one doesn't actually solve the problem per se): 1) Create a recursive macro that, on the first invocation, jumps to the first unread message in a mailbox, and then reconfigures itself to jump to the first new message. When invoked the second time, it jumps to the first new message, then reconfigures itself to jump to the first unread. Then you execute the macro twice and see which message is the one you want (in my case, it came down to which one came first in the index). This doesn't technically answer the actual question, but it does fake it a lot faster than typing it all in by hand all the time. :) 2) The other solution, which isn't actually a solution but may work for you, is to put unset mark_old in your .muttrc file. This will cause mutt to not even differentiate between new and unread mail, and thus any call to the next-new function will by definition also target unread mail. Which do I use? Hah, well, I can't stand doing #2 and haven't gotten around to doing #1 yet, so neither. :) However, here's an example of a recursive macro, so if you (or someone else) decides to put together #1, you can have a road map on how the concept of self-rewriting macros happens: macro index ESCJ ':my_hdr X-Priority: 5enter:my_hdr X-MSMail-Priority: Lowenter:macro index y ESCKenter' submacro for y macro index ESCK ':my_hdr X-Priority: 1enter:my_hdr X-MSMail-Priority: Highenter:macro index y ESCLenter' submacro for y macro index ESCL ':my_hdr X-Priority: 3enter:my_hdr X-MSMail-Priority: Normalenter:macro index y ESCMenter' submacro for y macro index ESCM ':unmy_hdr X-Priorityenter:unmy_hdr X-MSMail-Priorityenter:macro index y ESCJenter' submacro for y macro index y ESCJ Toggle Priority This is a set of four macros...one head macro, where you press y to cycle through Priority settings, and three support macros which actually change the header and refer to each other in sequence. I used the sequences ESCJKLM for the submacros simply because they were a pain to type (so I know I won't be wanting them for real key assignments that I'll actually be using directly...you don't ever call the submacros directly). Let me know if you have any questions. Actually, this brings out a couple of questions of my own. :) 1) Is there a command to echo text to the info line arbitrarily? You know, the part of the window where it says PGP signature successfully verified or Committing changes, etc. The bottom line. I'd really like to edit this set of macros, and some others, so that they print messages like Priority set to HIGH when you run them. 2) Is it possible to get mutt to put the word wrap character at the end of the continued line (like Emacs) rather than the beginning of the continuation? Example: This is a very long line of text which the user should have wrapped +before it got to my client, but didn't, so now my mail client has to +deal with them instead. (The above is what mutt does now) This is a very long line of text which the user should have wrapped+ before it got to my client, but didn't, so now my mail client has to+ deal with them instead. (The above is what I would like it to do) Yes, I realize we are now entering a level of anal that's extreme even for this group, but I had to throw it out. :) BTW, note that the above two examples above are both pre-wrapped, the + signs were put in manually by me; your word wrap is NOT broken. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg31798/pgp0.pgp Description
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-05 17:00:19 -0500]: This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you. Well, I've read quite a bit further down this thread before responding to this message, and I must say that regardless of any other netiquette breaches you may be guilty of, you did manage to not post again after saying you wouldn't; that's a skill a lot of us would do well to learn, I think. :p However... I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this style and will continue to use it. Well, obviously neither I nor anyone else can stop you, but I wish you wouldn't. It's just simply not the best way to do things. In addition to the various politeness-based reasons already cited by others, the one thing that really brings it home for me (as someone who values solutions that have empirical merit) is that top-quoting simply doesn't scale. What I mean is, if you are responding to a message that contains two separate points, to which you want to reply separately, putting your reply in one block (either at the top _or_ bottom) has certain objective, quantifiable disadvantages. Therefore, assuming you accept these two statements: 1) A reply to two separate parts of the same message is clearer when the two reply blocks appear immediately below the parts of the message to which they pertain. 2) Consistency of style is important for effective communication. (Hint: the very existence of written language is a demonstration of this point) ...then it follows that top-replying is not the best way. As an additional point, I submit the following excerpt from a post from [EMAIL PROTECTED], to the newsgroup microsoft.public.win2000: #When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it #down to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response #should appear below the quoted information. In follow-ups, whether #News or Mail, CUT headers signatures, PRUNE quotations, and preserve #order. That is to say, quote above each part of your reply as much #of the earlier stuff as is needed to put the new material in context, #but no more; most readers will be able to refer to the earlier article #itself, if need be. Never write on the same line as a quotation, except #in lists and notes; generally leave a wholly blank line between. Do not #quote the header or the signature, unless it is relevant to do so. Whether one's interpretation of the above is Microsoft said it, it must be true or Microsoft is saying it, which means it must be a standard that's been around so long that even they couldn't embrace and extend it, the message is the same. :) Now, I must say I find it quite humorous that their own official posting guidelines are violated by their own newsreader, but that's a whole other story. :) (Or is it...should you really think that all those Outlook users out there are doing the right thing when their client's default behaviour isn't even consistent with its author's employees' stated wishes?) In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much bandwidth is used for emails but I decide to quit this discussion just because many of you are too righteous to hear about it. Have a very good day. Bo Well, I'm still writing this followup in hopes that: 1) ...you are still reading the thread, if not replying, and your mind might still be changed, or 2) ...someone else who is on the fence will make the right decision. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Buttery) This .sig is dedicated to David T-G, the only person who noticed enough to wonder whether I was typing these in manually the last time I broke my sig rotation script. msg30804/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ';' tag-prefix function dead in pager mode
* Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-29 08:24:21 -0500]: I am unable while in pager mode to use the tag-prefix (;) operator to perform operations on tag-selected e-mails. Requires changing to the 'index' menu for use. I find no indication of this in the manual or 'man muttrc', other than the description of 'auto_tag' which indicates the 'index menu' mode is necessary. Is there a way to make this function usable in pager mode, or do I have a local problem? -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org Wouldn't something like: bind pager ; tag-prefix ...do the trick? (Note I said something _like_, I'm not sure if that's a drop-in. :p) -- John Buttery The easiest way to protest free speech is to pretend that you are being forced to listen to it. (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg30586/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Spam filtering software
* Stef Slamon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-28 08:34:03 -0700]: On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Because I'm using ASK (www.paganini.net/ask), and it works great. Looks neat; this appears to be a subset of TMDA (functionality-wise), but probably has the advantage of being a lot easier to set up. :) -- John Buttery msg30554/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
* Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-28 10:15:48 +0100]: On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote: Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people. Useless is a pretty strong word...it's merely a question of whether the benefit of the tool justifies the setup time. Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond from an address I know about. Well, I'm not going to get too far into advocacy here, given that this is a MUA list and not a anti-spam software list, but I do need to point out that you must have read a very old version of TMDA's feature list, because it is much more than a simple whitelist (which you could do with a 3-4 line procmail recipe anyway). The situation you're talking about sounds like a good candidate for TMDA's date-keyed addresses. Only a very small proportion of my (wanted) incoming mail is from people/addresses that are known to me, a 'whitelist' would catch a tiny proportion of my mail. That depends very heavily on the robustness of the whitelist. Maybe TMDA isn't right for you...ok...but don't insinuate that it's just a pattern check against a file with a list of regexps in it. :) -- John Buttery Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while. (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg30491/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Spam filtering software
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-08-27 02:29:36 -0600]: Alas! Ken Weingold spake thus: On Mon, Aug 26, 2002, Kai Weber wrote: + Ken Weingold [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yeah, but with procmail I can send them to /dev/null. With Spamassassin they go to my spam folder for review. You can use procmail to filter the spamassasin'ated mails to /dev/null, too. I would never do that. Sometimes Spamassassin catches real mail as spam. blacklisting adds 100 to the score. All you really have to do is set your procmail rules so that mails with a score over 90 are sent to /dev/null, and mails with less are sent to your spam folder. Then you get pretty much the best of both worlds. OK, this should have been its own thread a long time ago. :) Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA? Just haven't found it yet, or...? -- John Buttery If you can't live without me, why aren't you dead yet? (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg30460/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Shell script help for Mutt and script newbie (SOLVED).
* Brian Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-05-12 21:43:28 +0700]: On Sunday 12 May 2002 20:45, Joel Hammer wrote: - That file name worked for me. Brian...I know this sounds awfully style-nazi and all, but please consider changing your quoting character back to the standard instead of -. It really does make a difference. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable...but not for long wh) msg28042/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Feature request: uncolor not only in index
* Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-10 14:52:24 +0200]: So far so good. Currently it is impossible to remove that pattern again. uncolor only works in the index. Devellopers, any chance to change that? Once again I'd like to add my voice this feature. I see how you people are...I mention it 4 or 5 times and nobody says anything but now... :p Anyway, I think this would be great. I have a lot of different incoming mailboxes and certain strings have special significance if they come in from a particular source, that the same string doesn't have in other contexts; not being able to remove body/header colors means I wind up with a bunch of highlighted strings after I've been running for a while, which kinda defeats the purpose... By the way, Michael...would you mind asking for a feature where mutt will print the entire comment for the key being used to sign (in the compose screen) instead of just the Key ID? :pp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg27030/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: I've broken something
* darren chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-10 15:19:58 -0400]: If you like pain, try stracing a mutt session: strace -o /tmp/mutt.out mutt Actually, vim has very passable syntax highlighting for strace output files...saved me a lot of headaches. Just name the file *.strace and open it in vim (I'm not sure if the .strace extension is necessary, I just always use it and I know it worked with that). -- hmm, doing all these one-line sigs reminds me of taglines in the BBS days msg27031/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04- 1 01:03:29 -0700]: Alas! John Buttery spake thus: So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there doesn't seem to be one. It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word standard; it's more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the early days of USENET (maybe even earlier). Well, I try to follow convention, subject to the following fall-through logic (does this typify this group or what): 1) Actual draft standards, at least I think that's what they're called; whatever an RFC is called after Al Gore puts his Creator seal of approval on it or whatever and it actually becomes officially carved in stone 2) RFC specifications 3) Accepted norms 4) What I think is a good idea Of course, I try to temper #4 with as much expert advice as possible...hence my participation in this thread. Basically, absolutely the character is in there, even if no RFC says it is. What doesn't seem to be carved out yet is the presence or absence of the space following (or not following) it. So, I'm left with #4. The argument for _not_ having the space is increased space for deep quote nesting; the argument for having the space is increased parseability by editors and MUAs (and maybe even people, though that's a secondary concern for me really...I can count). So, based on that, I'm going to be changing my quote character back to . As always, no decision final, any additional comments/input welcome. -- Quick! Hide behind this pane of glass! You fool, you can see through it. Not if you close your eyes! msg26462/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]: NO. It's Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, especially you David. ;-) Well, I just did some googling and found a bunch of sites about quote characters; none of my attempts at searching the RFCs turned up anything useful, but I don't think I was using very good search terms. There doesn't seem to be an authoritative answer on this, despite what one of the eminent presences on this list implied a while back (in private; hence why I changed from to in the first place...). So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there doesn't seem to be one. Eliminating the space saves data, but more importantly it allows one more character to fit actual text into. Couple this with the fact that I've never heard of a mailer that triggered on for a quote, but not , and I don't see a compelling reason to switch back. Feel free to point out the authoritative source if there is one; I've changed my mutt settings plenty of times in response to things people say here (most recently my attribution string). By the way, Sven, you might want to check out this URL, I'm getting a 403 error: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/message/editing.html -- Hi David! :) msg26453/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* Thomas Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04- 1 02:52:00 +0100]: * John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ^ The problem with using just '' is that the quote string merges with the text and becomes difficult to disinguish, not only for users, but for reflowing algorithms which often have to put up with crap like: | %JF Bla bla That space goes a long way to ease working out what's a INITAL quote and what's not. Hmm. That's a good point. Not so much the human parseability angle, but I suppose it would make things easier for the machine parsers. please don't say: Foo bar wibble is better because it saves a single character. I personally find Well, of course it's better for that reason. Sure it's a small improvement, but some is better than none. However, it's quite possible that the reasons for doing it the other way outweigh the space savings. quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of: C=This is quoted text C=Bla bla bla C= C=Cookie to whoever works out what this brain dead quote string is C=supposed to represent. Yeah; the thing about that quoting is that it can be useful to trace heavily-nested attributions when people mangle/remove some/all of the attribution lines. Of course, the real fix for this is for the previous repliers to have quoted properly, not to introduce a multi-character quote...um...character. :) I like your idea of squashing all leading characters, but leaving a space after the group as a whole. That would save some space, and not make things any harder on the parsers, since you're still looking at ( zero or more ( characters followed by zero or one spaces ) ) followed by a space. I'll have to percolate on this some, maybe I need to change my quote string back. No biscuit for the person who said was nonstandard, you know who you are. :) -- ...floor pie... msg26456/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hiding the pgp sig completely from view?
* tim lupfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-27 22:06:08 -0600]: * thus spaketh Sven Guckes (Mar 28 at 03:37AM): but - is there a way I can just *hide* the pgp sig *completely* from view? mutt reads mail--stripping pgp sigs is the job of procmail or the like -- sorry, couldn't resist :P aahahahahahaha You gotta admit he's got you on that one Sven :)) -- yep. still lazy. msg26344/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: hiding the pgp sig completely from view?
* Thomas Huemmler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-28 08:55:45 +0100]: * Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02/03/28 07:58]: well, I had tried to delete those lines with sed pattern /^\[-- .* --\]$/d but it did not work. however, using the following sed pattern makes them go away: /-- .* --/d I'll have to find out why the first pattern did not work... ...maybe you'll see clearer, if you look at the pgp attachment in a signed mail (or after reading chapter 8 in the Mutt-GnuPG-PGP-HOWTO). HTH, Thomas -- Thomas Hümmler * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.huemmler.de Actually, I've had similar trouble trying to colorize some things. Consider the following two folder hooks: folder-hook . color body red default \^gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!.*\ folder-hook . color body red default \^gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.*\ Note: all the whitespace in there are spaces. These two folder-hooks work. BUT If I replace the .* at the end with a $ (to make the match tighter), they stop working. It suggests to me that there is some kind of control character or other nonprintable hanging at the end of the line there...but I'm not sure how to determine what it might be. I think this may be the cause of Sven's problem as well. Sven, why don't you try this and see if it works: /^\[-- .* --\].*/d The same as the first pattern you showed, that you said didn't work, except that the $ that explicitly terminates the line is replaced by the sequence .* instead. -- geez when am I going to fix this, it worked for like a day too msg26345/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is http address attachet to header?
* Patrik Modesto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-28 10:24:42 +0100]: Hi! I use Mutt 1.3.27i (2002-01-22) from Debian testing. 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 correct? Patrik OK this is a wild guess but... Are you using $edit_headers=yes? If so, you need to make sure there's a blank line between the headers and the body. I _think_. Like I said it's a wild guess. -- this broken sig script is really starting to itch msg26346/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tag or delete by date or age
* John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-28 04:07:05 -0600]: Can you tell us your... ... $pgp_getkeys_command? ... make and model of crypto software? ... keyserver hostname? And of course it didn't occur to me to provide mine :p I'm using GPG 1.0.6 with a keyserver wwwkeys.us.pgp.net. Here's my $pgp_getkeys_command: pgp_getkeys_command=/usr/bin/gpg --recv-keys %r /dev/null 21 Of course, there are implied other flags to gpg from its options file, so I'll go ahead and attach that. -- uh huh. no-greeting default-key 0x587F0CD702368857 force-v3-sigs escape-from-lines lock-once keyserver wwwkeys.us.pgp.net honor-http-proxy msg26354/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: canada sucks
* Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-25 21:59:56 +0100]: * Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-25 20:13]: Alas! tim lupfer spake thus: 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 ;) but does canada _really_ count? nah. go play with an elk :P Oh, _that_'s mature... my sister was bitten by a moose once ouch...those moose bites can be pretty nasty, you know... -- now, get back on topic or I will taunt you a second time! msg26239/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignore command does not seem to work
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-25 14:05:45 -0700]: Alas! Shawn McMahon spake thus: You can have it both ways; use Procmail to prepend X-Nuke at the beginning of all the bad lines, then ignore X-Nuke. 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). I know I'd be breaking some RFC, but if I prepended just 'Nuke' then it would get hidden, and the real X- headers that I want would be displayed. It's still easier to just rip the headers right out. -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This life is a test. It is only a test. Had this been an actual life, you would have received further instructions as to what to do and where to go. I must be missing something, but wouldn't you just add: ignore X-Nuke ...which is actually, in practice, more like ignore X-Nuke*? Still, if you have a system that does what you want, go with it. Philosophically I agree with whoever it was that said deleting content from an email was to be avoided at all costs, but it's your mail. I just know it would bug me more to know I was deleting headers than to look at the cruft. :) -- ridiculously long signature snipped, I know I go over 72x4 regularly but this one was just silly. :) msg26240/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signing (newbie)
* Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-24 21:09:42 +0200]: Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alas! Jussi Ekholm spake thus: But yeah - what is so bad in PGP signed mails in mailing lists? There is nothing wrong -- the people who say it is wrong are simply heretics. Oh, you _didn't_ want to start a flamewar? Oops... ;) LOL! Well, maybe we can have just a nice and friendly /discussion/ instead of a /flamewar/? ;-) 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... ;-) Well, here's my two cents for you to add to the stuff you're reading up on. I encrypt every message I can (which isn't many yet, *sigh*), sign all private mail except to the really militant dissenters (i.e. users of a particular version of Eudora that actually locks up trying to read the message...), and sign all list mail. I sign/encrypt all private mail because it just makes sense. But anyway, this thread is about (not) signing public/list mail. My own reasons for signing all list mail are thus: 1) It increases awareness of cryptography as a mainstream utility. Sometimes people ask me about it, maybe others silently look it up on the web or consult their local nerd resource. :) This is kinda a minor reason though. 2) The main reason I sign all list email is an attempt to _somewhat_ (please note the super-sized emphasis on somewhat as it becomes important later) counter the problem of signature authentication for untrusted keys. Let's pause a minute for a definition: Authentication by trust is defined as the level of trust a given key is assigned, based on the actual signatures that have been applied to the key by people who are assumed to have been acting in good faith and verified the identity of the key owner at the time of signing. Now let me just explicitly say that what I'm about to describe is _not_ (there's that super-sized emphasis again) a substitute for actual signatures on a key. This is just a suggestion for a second-best procedure... By signing all public mail, I am creating a far-flung paper trail on the web and in people's mailboxes of all my signed email. What this means is, that if someone gets a message that's signed by a key with my name on it but has no sigs that they themselves trust, they can consult something like Google and find its archive of 2.3 to the power of spork messages that are signed by my public key. They can then say, OK, whoever signed this message also signed all those other messages. A careful examination of a cross-section of those messages may give them some clue, maybe through speech patterns etc, that the person from all those messages is the same one who sent the email they now have in their inbox. Again, it's not a substitute for actual web-of-trust sigs, but it does at least a little good in a pinch. Just the fact that there are a zillion things out there with my sig lends it credence; after all, it would take a lot of motivation for someone to bother creating a fake key and then manually composing all those messages over the course of time just to fake someone out. Oh, and of course I also sign just to keep Rob from forging my email. :) -- still haven't fixed the sig rotation script. msg26045/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Defanged HTML headers [WAS: Re: [Announce] Mutt 1.3.28 (BETA) is out.]
* Cedric Duval [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-19 09:43:57 +0100]: John Buttery said: * Carl B. Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-18 08:43:58 -0800]: all I get at this page is the following: HEADDEFANGED_META HTTP-EQUIV=REFRESH CONTENT=0 URL=http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/;/HEAD that is displayed in NS 6.2.1 (solaris). You have a proxy server that is defanging tags for you (to protect from malicious META headers, Javascript, yadda yadda). Really, is there some content that could be seen as malicious in this page? It passes all W3C validator checks, and there is no javascript, so there should be no problem (here, at least, it works well with Mozilla 0.9.8, NS 4.7, Dillo and lynx) That's what I thought at first: a temporary overloaded server. ;) But you're right, it must be a proxy problem on Carl's side. (and it is merely OT here) Well, the heuristic is probably any meta tag. :) But yeah, that's what it is. I have a procmail-based filter that does the same thing to HTML email; that's how I recognized it. It disables potentially dangerous code by changing its leading tag to DEFANGED_*. -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25707/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Defanged HTML headers [WAS: Re: [Announce] Mutt 1.3.28 (BETA) is out.]
* Carl B. Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-18 08:43:58 -0800]: all I get at this page is the following: HEADDEFANGED_META HTTP-EQUIV=REFRESH CONTENT=0 URL=http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/;/HEAD that is displayed in NS 6.2.1 (solaris). You have a proxy server that is defanging tags for you (to protect from malicious META headers, Javascript, yadda yadda). You need to remove the DEFANGED_ so it just says ...META ... and it will redirect properly. Or you could just hit that URL it lists there directly and skip the redirection altogether. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25704/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: attribution line with 80 chars max
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:34:10PM +0100, Gerhard Häring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 13/03/02 à 05:20, John Buttery écrivit: Even the ISO format is somewhat lacking in this regard, since although it is ambiguous in a vacuum, the fact is that people may not _know_ you are using that format and so there is still ambiguity, although not a failing of the format itself. That's true of any representation of information. I personally am a great fan of ISO date format. Oh, I definitely agree that the ISO format is the way to go. Although I would change it a bit since technically the hyphens (-) are unnecessary due to the fields being fixed-length, but that's a bigger nitpick than even I am willing to seriously make. I was just saying that, unfortunately, the ISO format is only unambiguous if the parser (in this case, a human email recipient/reader) knows that that's the format being used. I certainly think that ISO dates should be used in headers, which are governed by RFC standards...but the trouble is that in-message quoting attributions aren't, so it's anybody's guess what format is being used. That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of 10 that if you see a date like -xx-xx it is probaby -MM-DD... It therefore follows that the only option out of the three that does the job without any ambiguity at all is the one with an alpha data. Yes, it's culturally biased, Indeed it is very biased. What if I used Am 2. Pfinsta nach Mariä Himmelfahrt, um 3/4 12, which was perfectly understandable in Bavaria 50 years ago, but even nowadays most Bavarian people will wonder which date that is. Of course, everybody outside Bavaria will probably make no sense at all of it. You do have a point, but my response is that the attribution that Simon suggested/used, and that I am agreeing with, is much less culturally biased than your example, and furthermore only to the point necessary to eliminate ambiguity. If you or anyone else has a suggestion of a way to represent a date without cultural bias that fits the following parameters, by all means let me know and I will switch to it: 1) Must use only standard formats (no language-specific constructs 2) Must specify the full date to a precision of 1 second with no ambiguity 3) Must not rely on accepted standards or prior agreement Having said that, it does appear that we have collectively identified an element of email that needs discussing and standardizing. If one were going to submit some kind of mini-RFC for attribution lines, how would one go about it? -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25396/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ISO 8601 (was Re: OT: attribution line with 80 chars max)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0500, N. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:01:28AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of 10 that if you see a date like -xx-xx it is probaby -MM-DD... Interesting... In what situation would -XX-XX ever be confused with -DD-MM instead of -MM-DD? Like I said, if the person didn't know you were using ISO format: 2002-01-02 If we know this is ISO, then obviously it's January 2, 2002. But if we're not _sure_ it's ISO, then it could be February 1, 2002. Please reply to either the list or me personally, not both (preferably to the list unless it's a personal matter). Not a flame, just a reminder. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25422/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: system hang - remove signature?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:56:42AM -0500, David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: accidentally -- a pipe would do that. Removing your muttrc leaves the only possibility in your /etc/Muttrc, though, which is also quite unlikely. Unless he moved it by just removing the dot, (muttrc), in which case mutt will still find it. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25423/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About the language for the mutt config tool
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:54:11AM +0100, Erika Pacholleck wrote: [08.03.02 00:03 +0100] Marco Fioretti -- : About this particular project: let's just do it in whatever language the majority of the volunteers is ALREADY proficient with, not with the one which the majority of the list thinks better for any reason. I do not agree to this, one thing I would ask you to consider: Take a language which you can expect to be present on minimal systems. Otherwise you might end up in dependencies which are no advantage for mutt. One of the advantages of console progs is that they do not need hundreds of extra languages installed to get them going. Speaking of installing a distro (which most beginners would do) those are already blown up enough, now imagine you would for example need a jre just for the mutt config tool .. -- speaking of compiling mutt yourself (which more experienced would do but which does not mean that they understand all the muttrc values) is even worse if (often seen) the documentation does not mention all dependencies. And as a result of that, it might happen that a user of netscape/kde/pine.. who has heard of mutts capabilities and wants to try that, will stay with his old one because the only alternate to those depencies would be vim+manual. Viewing from this point, perl would be a good choice and as far as I saw from former postings it might turn out to become perl. -- Erika Pacholleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] mutters: insert vowels of last name I agree with this logic; there's nothing that this shell script needs to do that can't be done with a Bourne shell script. That's the one interpreter you're always guaranteed to have. Now, having said that, I would imagine that most systems that have mutt installed will also have perl... :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25189/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mutt configuration tool
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:23:29AM +, Simon White wrote: On 07-Mar-02 at 12:26, Marco Fioretti's inspired musing was thus : We should check if that code is available, and how hard it is to make it work in a shell. Absolutely. Someone has already thought about the tool and even implemented it. It should be command line to save that poor guy's bandwidth :) Too many people in Open Source are reinventing the wheel, especially FTP clients, lightweight web servers, PHP photo galleries, etc Well, if we're not reinventing the wheel, why not just ask the guy if we can have a copy of his whole HTML and just include it with the mutt distribution? I'm sure it's not very big on disk. Then just include instructions on how to navigate to the first page of it with a browser. The only reason to do a whole new shell script is if you're going to do logic like someone mentioned a few posts back, ie autodetection of where the mail spool is etc. I think newbies will feel more at home with a web-based interface. Maybe if we wanted to get really motivated (and we are mutt users after all :p) we could have the web conf generator (assuming the author lets us have it) and then have a line at the end of it that instructs the user to run a shell script. The shell script would then modify the generated conf, dealing with variables that can be autodetected. I don't think that would be too confusing as long as the transition instructions were worded clearly. I mean, in theory our target audience is comfortable, at least a little, with using a terminal. For that matter, there could be a shell script generate-conf or whatever that finds a browser, loads the web conf generator in it, and then when the conf generator exits it automatically jumps into the autodetect-and-modify stuff. Am I going off the deep end here? By the way, anyone have any comments on my GPG key? Is everything working now? -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25126/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Folder view - use file mask!
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:23:03AM +0100, Sven Guckes wrote: * David Collantes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020304 17:09]: Does anyone knows how to view folders on more than one column? Right now it shows one column only, but when you have a lot of mailboxes that gets quite long... multicolumn output has not been implemented yet. one column is all you get for now. sorry. anyway, mutt builds up the list of all my folders in less than two seconds - and i have quite a few folders there: cd ~/Mail ls | wc -l 5290 btw: using 'm' to enter a file mask is a much more powerful selection method than displaying the names in multiple columns. and you still get to jump to some folder name by its index number. :-) try it! Sven -- Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/setup.html What in the name of all that is holy are you _doing_ in there?! -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25016/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Adding a header is there is an attachment
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 06:05:05AM -0500, David Collantes wrote: * John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-03-02 02:07 AM EST]: I am looking to add an extra header to my outgoing mails if there is an attachment. I tried the following macro: macro compose a :my_hdr: X-Attachment: Safe\nattach-file But it seems that at that point headers can not be added that way. Anyone has a better, working idea? The concept is sound, but your execution is a little off. :) First of all, the command is my_hdr, not my_hdr:, so that'll give you some problems. Try this: macro compose a :my_hdr X-Attachment: Safeenterattach-file John and folks, That recommendation does not works neither. I think that when you are at that point -email already composed- it is not possible to add any extra headers. They need to be added 'before' you enter message compossing. IN other words, unless someone else can provide the right macro, it can not be done at the point I am trying to. Perhaps creating a macro with \' that will start the compossing of an email with the special header on. If I am attaching something to an email I should know before I start typing that I will be doing so... just an idea, I guess... Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida Only a life lived for others is a life worth while. Oh, you're right of course, I didn't even think about the significance of the compose context. Hmph. Yeah, it looks like you may be stuck macroing a secondary compose key for what you want (well, that or manually editing the headers). Assuming you're not worried about rogue attachments being added at your end (but rather a compromised MTA along the way), you could be SUPER motivated and write a wrapper for $sendmail that takes the message, parses any attachment names out of it, adds the header with formail, and _then_ sends it to sendmail or whatever for MTA-ing. That's some pretty heavy kung fu but it might do what you want. -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25017/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Folder view - use file mask!
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:19:36AM -0500, MuttER wrote: * John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [03-05-02 06:45] crowed: multicolumn output has not been implemented yet. one column is all you get for now. sorry. anyway, mutt builds up the list of all my folders in less than two seconds - and i have quite a few folders there: cd ~/Mail ls | wc -l 5290 btw: using 'm' to enter a file mask is a much more powerful selection method than displaying the names in multiple columns. and you still get to jump to some folder name by its index number. :-) try it! he is showing you how many lines (folders) exist in his Mail directory. -- Pat Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 Registered at: http://counter.li.org I know. :) My point was, how do you possibly generate a need for that many folders? -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25020/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg signature (was: Folder view - use file mask!)
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Thomas Huemmler wrote: * John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02/03/05 15:41]: -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8hNitWH8M1wI2iFcRApO/AJwOFPUVJn3wxcP8r26eeANYGT7fdgCgklRs 3c1l651J0OaZ86L/ae2phjE= =+SPC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ...and now for something completely different: Sorry, if I do not add something more genuine to this thread. But could you please send your gpg signature to a public keyserver or stop signing your messages. Just because every time I open one of your messages in the pager, my gpg is trying to verify your sig, which doesn't exist on public servers, and therefore gpg doesn't add it to its keyring. Thomas Or is there something wrong with my gpg settings? -- Thomas Hümmler * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.huemmler.de This is really odd; you're not the first person to say this, but I _did_ upload it to a keyserver, not only that but I have successfully retrieved it as well. Everyone I've said the following thing to has not written me back afterward, so I assume it solved the problem, but could you try it and report back if it works? I uploaded my key to certserver.pgp.com. I've also successfully retrieved my key from this server. Is this one not in the rotation? Is there some other server I should be using? I have successfully retrieved (almost) everyone else's key from that server as well. Would you mind querying that server directly and see if you get the key? gpg --verbose --keyserver certserver.pgp.com --recv-keys 587F0CD702368857 This is what I get when I run that command: % gpg --verbose --keyserver certserver.pgp.com --recv-keys 587F0CD702368857 gpg: requesting key 02368857 from certserver.pgp.com ... gpg: armor header: Version: PGPsdk 2.0.1 Copyright (C) 2000 Networks Associates Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. gpg: pub 1024D/02368857 2002-02-06 John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg: key 02368857: not changed gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: unchanged: 1 % -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25024/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg signature (was: Folder view - use file mask!)
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:02:55AM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote: Said John Buttery on Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:24:49AM -0600: gpg --verbose --keyserver certserver.pgp.com --recv-keys 587F0CD702368857 That worked for me. I use pgp.dtype.org, though, and it wasn't there. -- [!] Justin R. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP 0xC9C40C31 -=- http://codesorcery.net http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/ Well, this _appears_ to validate my theory that the problem is simply that the keyservers aren't synchronizing. However, based on the fact that a user is generally not correct when facing a discrepancy with the function of a well-established service, I'm still going to assume this is a PEBKAC and try Steve's suggestion of wwwkeys.us.pgp.net as a server. So, while all of you who use servers other than that specific one could get it from there (assuming I am correct and they don't synchronize), I suppose the best thing to do in the name of research is to wait a day or two (how often are they supposed to mirror?) and see if the key shows up on your local keyserver. The key is already uploaded so the clock is ticking: % gpg --verbose --keyserver wwwkeys.us.pgp.net --send-keys 587F0CD702368857 titlePublic Key Server -- Add/titlep h1Public Key Server -- Add/h1p pre Key block added to key server database. New public keys added: 1 /pre gpg: success sending to `wwwkeys.us.pgp.net' (status=200) % gpg --verbose --keyserver wwwkeys.us.pgp.net --send-keys 587F0CD702368857 titlePublic Key Server -- Add/titlep h1Public Key Server -- Add/h1p pre Key block in add request contained no new keys, userid's, or signatures. /pre gpg: success sending to `wwwkeys.us.pgp.net' (status=200) % -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25034/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Feature request: auto_view accepts its own handler
I'm not sure I used the correct terminology in the Subject: line, but what I'm looking for is pretty easy to explain (hopefully easy to implement also :p) Basically, this is what we have now: auto_view image/tiff This line tells mutt to consult $mailcap_path and find a mailcap entry that corresponds to the MIME type and display it Well, as you can see from this particular example, you're not going to get anything useful from a TIFF file on a 80x24 terminal (and no, aaview is not an acceptable answer :)) So, what one does is create a mutt-specific mailcap file that has a line for image/tiff which, instead of calling a graphic viewer like qiv/ee/xv/etc, calls something like tiffinfo that displays some properties of the image instead, so at least you can get _something_ useful out of it Well, I like this behaviour by itself, but I think this is only one example of a whole class of cases where the viewer desired for an inline, auto_view environment is a lot different from the viewer one would normally use for a given file type In other words, I think it would be good to have something like this: auto_view image/tiff tiffinfo '%s' In theory, if any more arguments appear after the first argument (the type argument, in this case 'image/tiff') then they are assumed to be a mailcap-format capabilities line Of course, it wouldn't have/want to be a full-featured implementation, since most of the mailcap fields would be irrelevant in an auto_view context (like compose, composetyped, etc), but maybe test and notes could be used somehow *shrug* The point of all this, is that you now have a viewer specifically for auto_view, which is displaying files out of their native environment most of the time So, now when you go to the view attachments menu and select one, you can actually execute it with an image viewer or whatever, instead of having to save it to disk first and then manually run it, or take the time to use the pipe-entry function which may not work if the viewer command doesn't accept stdin By the way, I have read this from Section 53 of the manual: - cut here In addition, you can use this with Autoview to denote two commands for viewing an attachment, one to be viewed automatically, the other to be viewed interactively from the attachment menu In addition, you can then use the test feature to determine which viewer to use interactively depending on your environment text/html; netscape -remote 'openURL(%s)' ; test=RunningX text/html; lynx %s; nametemplate=%shtml text/html; lynx -dump %s; nametemplate=%shtml; copiousoutput - cut here This solution works Most Of The Time(tm), but is a bit inelegant in that it co-opts the copiousoutput flag for mutt use I think adding this extra functionality to the auto_view function would eliminate the need for a lot of the mutt-specific mailcap files that are out there, and should be implementable without a whole lot of coding; in other words, when mutt goes to autoview a particular file as a result of the auto_view command, it sees that there is already an instruction on the command line and just uses that instead of calling the function that searches the mailcap files for a corresponding line Of course, generating a compliant mailcap-style line that views the attachment in the pager without errors would be the user's responsibility; but it already is when generating mailcap files -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25035/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: external page: vi
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:13:27PM -0500, Joel Hammer wrote: map z z --- fast shift email to top of screen. First command given after email comes up in vi. I wish I could get this to happen automatically. Joel Well, I'm pretty much a vi newbie myself but someone showed me a command called normal which lets you specify characters to pass arbitrarily to vi. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do there, since you seem to be mapping a key back to itself (map z to z) but that's probably just because I don't know enough about vim rc syntax. Anyway, try something like this: normal z^M ...or whatever you would normally physically type to vi to get it to do whatever. Oh yeah, and yes vi=vim in this email. :) 5.8 specifically, and yes I plan to upgrade soon. -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25070/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Article Re Mutt (re: ..handicapped.. )
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 06:11:30PM -0900, Tim Johnson wrote: Hello All: Earlier I posted an email to this list soliciting comments about mutt. Many of those comments were used in an article that I wrote in our webzine about ncurse/s-lang/command-line tools for linux. The article(s) is/are at http://www.frozen-north-linuxonline.com/ under Tim's Bytes. Enjoy. Thanks so much for the comments. -- Tim Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com http://www.johnsons-web.com - cut here (from web page) Mutt quotes: (The mindlessly zealous and blindly elitist were weeded out) - cut here (from web page) But apparently not weeded well enough... - cut here (from web page) not everyone needs folder- and send- and pgp-hooks and 6 layers of mailcap fallthrough logic etc etc. - cut here (from web page) ...because there I am, blind elitism and all! :) wh This post is all in good fun, I hope nobody thinks I'm thumbing my nose at them. -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25072/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How to get mutt bark for new created mbox?
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:25:04PM +0800, Charles Jie wrote: Hi, Now I have a mail system with 7 mboxes. Some of them are usually cleared to empty and removed by mutt. I found that if procmail feeds new mail into such mboxes and creates them, mutt will not get aware of the new mails. Is it a feature? best regards, charlie I don't know the answer to your actual question, but have you looked into the $save_empty variable? Perhaps a workaround could be to not have mutt remove the mailboxes in the first place... -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25074/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: spam tricks updated
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:18:52PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
Gerhard Hðring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's one trick I've learnt from this list:
send-hook . 'set editor=vim; set record={gargamel}INBOX.Sent'
send-hook spamcop 'set editor=/bin/true ; set record='
I understand what the variable settings are for, but I can't figure out,
what does this do?
The second line basically makes it so mutt skips the whole editing
phase when sending an email to spamcop; since presumably those
addresses are being sent to an automated parser, all it wants is the
original email anyway. It also unsets the $record variable, since
apparently the user doesn't want to keep an FCC record of mails being
sent to that address.
By the way, big kudos to the guy who actually forwarded enough spam
there to be annoyed by the fact he was filling up his fcc folder. :))
The first line is a default, to reset back to normal behaviour for
every other message you send (although most likely only has an effect on
the next message after one sent to spamcop).
--
John Buttery
(Web page temporarily unavailable)
msg25004/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Adding a header is there is an attachment
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:15:56AM -0500, David Collantes wrote: Hi all! I am looking to add an extra header to my outgoing mails if there is an attachment I tried the following macro: macro compose a :my_hdr: X-Attachment: Safe\nattach-file But it seems that at that point headers can not be added that way Anyone has a better, working idea? Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://wwwbusucfedu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida Few are those who see with their own eyes feel with their own hearts The concept is sound, but your execution is a little off :) First of all, the command is my_hdr, not my_hdr:, so that'll give you some problems Try this: macro compose a :my_hdr X-Attachment: Safeenterattach-file -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25005/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to print html-mails - return to sender
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:17:07PM +0100, Marco Fioretti wrote: * Johannes Franken [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020303 12:12]: What's the best way to print those mails from mutt - including the pics while not using X? Johannes, I agree with Sven. If there ***really*** had been a need for pictures (i.e. if they are not some company logo) they could have sent a compressed file as attachment, or just put the page online somewhere, and sent you the URL. IMPORTANT: when asking them to behave properly (i.e. to not send HTML messages) don't mention Mutt: if they were able to understand it, they would not send HTML mail at all. Mention the REAL motive to avoid HTML email: it wastes bandwidth, slowing needlessly everyone online, and forces the RECEIVER to waste HIS time and (if on dialup) money to see a uselessly fancier message. Botht things are bad/uneducated even among window users only. Ciao, Marco load them up in some ugly M$ web browser. that' what they were intended for anyway. my advice: tell the sender to send you a printout via snail mail. works for me. if i'ts ok for the M$ weenies to ask for data in special formats - so can we. why accept mails with problems anyway? Sven Yeah, definitely don't mention mutt...or, more specifically, don't mention the concept of mailer compatibility. All you'll do is put the idea in their head that you want them to change their email habits to accomodate your limited mail client. By pointing out the bandwidth and time issues, you make sure to focus the blame where it belongs. :) -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg25006/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is mutt really handicapped?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:05:16AM -0900, Tim Johnson wrote: Hello All: Now that I have your attention - I and friends publish a webzine: http://wwwfrozen-north-linuxonlinecom/ And we publish monthly We also have a local linux user's group and a mailing list A comment was made to the mailing list that mutt was handicapped As you may well imagine, that comment was not received well Is there anyone on this list that would like to contribute some comments about the advantages of switching from something like netscape mail to mutt? If you do so, use your own judgement as to whether you want to send your comments to this list or directly to me Let me know if you wish to be quoted or if I should paraphrase your comments Feel free to be colorful I'm putting together a march column in which I'm going to talk about my useage of vim, mutt, fetchmail, procmail, lynx, slrn, ncftp, and MC as my suite of tools, and I would like to user your comments in that column BTW: Sven is a contributing columnist and we are always looking for contributing columnists In the current issue, I write about mailing lists and mention mutt there Best regards Tim This may sound a little more harsh than I mean it This isn't a flame, just a statement of opinion; please take it as such One of the worst things that is happening to Linux (and when I say Linux I'm including the BSD children and the rest of the new wave of open-source OSes, software, etc) is people's apparent deep-seeded need to legitimize it to Windows users (and when I say Windows I'm not just talking about RedmondOS, but a certain mindset that prevails regardless of OS) Show them the mutt web page If they don't see the advantage, well, why waste time trying to convert them? -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24871/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: blind elitism (was Re: Is mutt really handicapped?)
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote: On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 02:23:35AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: This may sound a little more harsh than I mean it. This isn't a flame, just a statement of opinion; please take it as such... One of the worst things that is happening to Linux (and when I say Linux I'm including the BSD children and the rest of the new wave of open-source OSes, software, etc) is people's apparent deep-seeded need to legitimize it to Windows users (and when I say Windows I'm not just talking about RedmondOS, but a certain mindset that prevails regardless of OS). You know, enlightening people, showing them a better, easier, more elegant, powerful way of working is part of a generous mindset, it's called fraternity. I didn't say/mean that you shouldn't show them, give them a push in the right direction. I just think that once you've led the horse to the water, maybe there's better things to do than shove its head in. :) It's not us versus them, we share all the same world and one can't live in supreme isolation. As I already stated on this list: if you don't evangelize Linux and its wonderful tools to the masses then you will follow the path of all elititist groups: obsolescence. Hapiness alone is not hapiness. I don't see how obsolescense follows from lack of evangelism. Linux and the open-source movement grew up from nothing, and continues to thrive and grow today. And I don't see how letting someone else use Netscape Mail is happiness alone. They email me, I email them. We coexist with our own MUAs. Do you think Linux would have thrived as it does without any evangelism? The lower you place the barrier to entry into a better world, the stronger we will be collectively. That, in my opinion, is only correct for certain values of lower. Let me use the example of Windows; Microsoft has spent tons of money and resources making each successive version easier to use and more accessible, and has it changed the percentage of (what some people call) clueless lusers? Maybe a little, but not really. And the reason is, that the barrier is not that Windows is hard to use, which it's not, but the mindset in people that it's hard, or that they can't do it. Continually lowering the bar perpetuates that mindset. Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely plenty of values of lower that _are_ valid; I'm not saying it should be twm or bust for anyone wanting to learn Linux, or mutt, or anything. All I'm saying is, mutt has a target demographic and not everyone is in it...and maybe we should stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One of my roommates is more than competent, has used mutt for longer than I have, and recently switched to Evolution and loves it. It's what's right for him; not everyone needs folder- and send- and pgp-hooks and 6 layers of mailcap fallthrough logic etc etc. In your ideal world you'll be part of the 1% who uses correct software; with whom will you be able to communicate once the other 99% use a proprietary mail protocol, because free tools were too hard to use and nobody cared to promote them? Now you're talking about a totally different concept. If it gets to the point where Microsoft (and if anybody does it, it will be them) moves toward proprietarizing SMTP (well, beyond internal Exchange-controlled networks) then yes, it's definitely time to start beating the war drums. But until then, my RFC-compliant messages reach them fine, and their (almost-)RFC-compliant messages reach me fine. We're not talking about converting Netscape users because we can't communicate with them. There are plenty of free MUAs out there that are perfectly easy to use; pine and Evolution spring first to mind. Usability is not going to be the barrier to conversion if it comes to that. The barrier is mindset (and, in Outlook's case, proprietary mailbox format). Show them the mutt web page. If they don't see the advantage, well, why waste time trying to convert them? Paraphrasing Paul Léautaud: Let's stop right there. There is an abyss between us. I would only shock you, and you would make me laugh. Too bad the world your attitude prepares is no laughing matter... I think you're misinterpreting my attitude. To me, there's only one good reason to do more than a simple push toward a better client; if they are your friend, etc., and you care about them enough to badger them until they use an MUA that doesn't make their system vulnerable to waves of VB- and Javascript-based scripting attacks. Anything beyond that, and you're talking about pushing information about someone solely for their own benefit. If they don't want to help themselves after being shown the way, well, that's their problem. Or, maybe the MUA/OS/whatever that they have now really is the right thing for them. Now, I'm willing to admit I'm a little jaded on the subject, but I still think I have a good point. Over the years I've
Re: searching across mailboxes
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 07:41:21PM +0100, Thomas Baker wrote: On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Adam Byrtek wrote: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:56:20 +0100 From: Adam Byrtek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Adam Byrtek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: searching across mailboxes On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:43:42AM -0800, Carl B. Constantine wrote: Is there a way in mutt to search across all my local mailboxes for a message that is from a specific person and then display the list of matches so I can go through and look for the message I want? You should try grepm at http://www.barsnick.net/sw/grepm.html I understand grepmail (http://sourceforge.net/projects/grepmail) does something like this, but I haven't tried it myself (and am curious). Tom grepmail's a great little app. Basically what it does is, it works like grep except it expects the file it's searching to be a From -delimited mbox file. For each match it finds, it outputs the entire message containing that line. The output (which is normally spit to stdout) can be redirected to a file to create a new mbox file if desired. -- John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24689/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
How does one print a message to the status line?
error message I'm wondering how I can print informational messages to the messagebox in mutt. I don't know if this area has a name, but it's the last line on the screen, where mutt prints stuff like the progress of loading a folder, mailbox read-only, etc. Basically, I have a macro that changes the message priority (would like to be able to do this from the Compose screen but I can live with this as a workaround), but it just kind of does its thing in the background and I have to manually view the headers from the compose menu if I want to make sure it's done it right. Since I have to start the whole email over if it isn't, it would be nice to be able to have the macro echo Priority changed to Normal etc while I am still in the index view, ie before I hit 'm' to start composing the message. I looked through the mutt docs but couldn't find anything. By the way, on a completely unrelated note, does anybody here use joe as their editor? I like it a lot but its idea of word wrap is pretty interesting sometimes. Look at the end of the above paragraph, in fact look at the line right above this. What's up with that? (BTW: here's a copied copy of the above paragraph after using joe's auto-justify function. 72 columns my foot. :) By the way, on a completely unrelated note, does anybody here use joe as their editor? I like it a lot but its idea of word wrap is pretty interesting sometimes. Look at the end of the above paragraph, in fact look at the line right above this. What's up with that? -- John Buttery Is that the cat? Jessie Scarlett (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24435/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How does one print a message to the status line?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 10:31:18AM -0500, MuttER wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:12:30AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: error message I'm wondering how I can print informational messages to the messagebox in mutt. I don't know if this area has a name, but By the way, on a completely unrelated note, does anybody here use joe as their editor? I like it a lot but its idea of word wrap is pretty interesting sometimes. Look at the end of the above paragraph, in fact look at the line right above this. What's up with that? (BTW: here's a copied copy of the above paragraph after using joe's auto-justify function. 72 columns my foot. :) By the way, on a completely unrelated note, does anybody here use joe as their editor? I like it a lot but its idea of word wrap is pretty interesting sometimes. Look at the end of the above paragraph, in fact look at the line right above this. What's up with that? I use joe. I believe that there were some text formatting problems with an earlier version. I'm using 2.8 and have no problems. I like it because of the familiar keystrokes (cpm, windstar, etc). I do wish it had a better macro language thou. -- Pat Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 Registered at: http://counter.li.org Odd...this is 2.9.6. Oh well, not something I can't live with. Maybe I'll try jed and/or nano. Don't like vi's notion of separate command/edit modes so don't want to use it all the time for email editing... -- John Buttery Man, that Shaft is a bad mutha... Shut yo' mouth! I'm just talkin' 'bout Shaft... (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24439/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Support for RFC 2369?
Hey, I was just wondering if mutt had any plans to implement support for RFC 2369. For those who don't know, it deals with standardizing the headers used by mailing list software (mailman/majordomo/etc). Some clients are supporting this by providing special keybindings when these headers are found, etc. You can check out the spec here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2369.html ...and some new ones I came up with when they got me thinking about it, if you want: http://www.io.com/~john/misc/rfc2369-comments.txt -- John Buttery The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24388/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another mailcap question
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 03:09:59PM +0100, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote: Hi there, is it possible to have two or mailcap entries for a mime type and then being able to select one from mutt, when viewing the attachment? BTW, I have a mutt only mailcap file. Ciao, Viktor -- Viktor Rosenfeld WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/ Well, this isn't specifically an answer to your question, but if nobody else has the actual answer then maybe this will do. Could it be that the two types of mailcaps you want to select from are one I want when I am in X and one for when I'm just in a terminal from a remote host? If so, there's a wonderful little utility called RunningX that, in combination with a little mailcap juju, will produce the effect you want (at least, it does for me). Here's a snippet from my mailcap file: image/gif; /usr/local/bin/qiv '%s'; test=/home/john/bin/RunningX 1 /dev/null 2/dev/null image/gif; /usr/local/bin/aaview '%s'; test=test -z $REMOTEHOST; copiousoutput image/*; sz '%s'; test=which sz 1/dev/null 2/dev/null image/*; echo Remote with no X or sz, punt This is probably overkill, but I like having multiple failsafes handy. :) Basically, this is what this does with, in this example, a GIF file: 1) Checks to see if we have an X server, if so display with qiv, an X11 graphic viewer similar to xv/ee. 2) Failing that, checks for the $REMOTEHOST variable (specifically, it's looking to see if it's _absent_) and if it's not there, it assumes we are local but not in X and uses aaview (a textmode graphics viewer) to display. 3) Failing that, it assumes we are remote and looks for sz to send the file ZModem. 4) Failing that, punt! RunningX is available from the usual places, or I can send it to you if you'd like (it's 12K, 3K stripped). A less bulletproof alternative to RunningX is to use test ! -z $DISPLAY as the test. -- John Buttery You know, when I was in the Boy Scouts they told us the best way to get warm was to get naked, and get in a sleeping bag with someone else who was already naked. Well, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll start raining sleeping bags. X-Files (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24366/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reply question
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:23:10PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. I have several mailadresses, is it possible to config mutt that it uses the from adres instead of the default from. For example: A person has mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I repley I want [EMAIL PROTECTED] as from in stead of my default from adres [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have searched the muttrc manpage and found the set reverse_name option, but it doesn't work. Can somebody help me? Thnx. Peter Durieux This is just a guess, but have you set $alternates as well? I don't know if it's required but maybe... -- John Buttery Why do CS majors always confuse Christmas and Halloween? Because DEC(25)=OCT(31). (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24328/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Scripted GPG-encrypted mails
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:23:49PM +, Dave Smith wrote: Hi all. I'm trying to write a script which will mail any file specified as an argument, to a specific user. However, I need the mail to be sent GPG-encrypted. Obviously, I can use cat file | gpg -e -a -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mutt -s Hello World [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or equivalent, but that's a bit messy, and requires significant effort on the receiving end. Does anyone have any ideas on how I could get mutt to send a GPG-encoded file on the command line, so that it appears as a proper encrypted attachment? The MUA at the receiving end is also mutt, so there's no problem with broken receiving mailers. ...or is this beyond mutt's intended functionality? TIA... Well, I'm not sure how to do this on the command line, but in a script (or possibly on the command line given enough voodoo) you could gpg-encrypt the file first, use --output to generate a gpg-crypted output file, and then call mutt with -a to attach that file to a message. Is that what you had in mind? Yeah right, like there's something you can't do with mutt. :) -- John Buttery Mulder, please explain to me the scientific significance of 'the whammy'... X-Files (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg24278/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wish about mutt's file browser
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 06:58:10AM -0500, David T-G wrote: John, et al -- ...and then John Buttery said... % ... % Anyway, without getting into a technical discussion about locale % settings and GNU ls...if you want ls to sort stuff the old way, put % this into your shell startup file: How about, still without getting into a technical discussion, a pointer to where to learn about how to play with LC_COLLATE to make ls do different things? I'm interested in how to have directories at the top, just for fun, and how to ignore case in particular. There is WAY more information than any sane person would ever want to see about locale environment variables (which makes it the perfect fit for this group *grin*) at this URL: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xbd/locale.html You'll probably want to scroll down to the section on LC_COLLATE; all the LC_* environment variables are examined in painstaking detail there. -- John Buttery You know, when I was in the Boy Scouts they told us the best way to get warm was to get naked, and get in a sleeping bag with someone else who was already naked. Well, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll start raining sleeping bags. X-Files (Web page temporarily unavailable) uncolor body/header/subliminalmessage
Re: Wish about mutt's file browser
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:46:17AM +0800, Charles Jie wrote: Now let's see linux (for me, Mandrake 8.1): 2. The 'ls' don't group directories/files into two part. - If you code something to achieve it, you lose the COLORs. *3. Mutt's file browser - also mix up directories and files, which hurts eyes. - We also want an option to IGNORE the cases of file/folder names in sorting. - any patch can help? File system is everything. If we can not deal with it smoothly, life is tough. best regards, charlie That is true, if you can't interact with the filesystem, life is tough. Actually, things were sorted the way you're referring to until recently. The issue you're referring to isn't a Mandrake issue, it's a GNU issue...with the new version of GNU ls, they are finally observing the locale settings that they were supposed to be observing from the beginning. :) Anyway, without getting into a technical discussion about locale settings and GNU ls...if you want ls to sort stuff the old way, put this into your shell startup file: ~/.cshrc (csh) or ~/.tcshrc (tcsh): setenv LC_COLLATE posix ~/.profile (sh) or ~/.bashrc (bash) or ~/.zprofile (zsh) export LC_COLLATE=posix That will fix things with ls, and then if you combine that with the patch someone suggested a few posts back in the message [EMAIL PROTECTED], that should make mutt collate the same way. klaxonNote to people who have LC_ALL set/klaxon: In case someone else tries this; LC_ALL is not a default variable, it's an override variable. You must unset it before any of the sub LC_* variables will have an effect. All of this talk of piping ls to sort, or aliasing it to find, is giving me twitches. :) -- John Buttery Man, that Shaft is a bad mutha... Shut yo' mouth! I'm just talkin' 'bout Shaft... (Web page temporarily unavailable) psst...uncolor (body|header)... pretty please? :)
Re: how to change xterm title depending on current mailbox
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 09:48:58AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: Christoph Kampe wrote: Is there any folder-hook, to change the xterm-title displaying the name of the mailbox i'm changing in? only if you patch mutt. i think the debian package has the patch already. i can put the xtitles patch version relative to 1.3.2x up somewhere for you, or send you the patch via email if you'd like. w I'd love a copy of this patch too, if you don't mind. By the way, is there any way to get mutt to start composing _after_ the quoted text instead of before it when replying? -- John Buttery The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken (Web page temporarily unavailable) msg23578/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Quake III configuration for mutt
I thought that would get some attention. :P I was researching my scoring problems and I ran across a semi-recent post about cycling the From: line from the composer, and it kinda inspired me to set up something for myself. I had to consult my old Quake 3 configs to remember the logic flow for these recursive macros, but I think I've come up with something kinda neat. Put this wherever you put your composer macros: macro compose ESCw 'edit-fromhome(enteredit-from[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Buttery)enter:macro compose x ESCxenter' submacro for x macro compose ESCx 'edit-fromhome(enteredit-from[EMAIL PROTECTED] (name2)enter:macro compose x ESCyenter' submacro for x macro compose ESCy 'edit-fromhome(enteredit-from[EMAIL PROTECTED] (name3)enter:macro compose x ESCwenter' submacro for x macro compose x ESCw toggle From\: header Before you load this into your muttrc, check your Composer keybindings (the screen you get right before your message is sent) and make sure the following keys aren't bound: x ESCw ESCx ESCy For any key that's already bound, you'll need to go through the above macros and change each occurrence of that key to another one that's not being used. The upshot of this macro is you press one key (the only key you interact with as a user is x) and it will cycle the From: line through all the signatures you've defined. Bear in mind that if the first macro (escape-w in this case) is set to use your normal From: line, you won't see a result the first time you press x (because it's rewriting the From: line to be the same thing that's already there). Anyway, HTH, HAND, YMMV, hopefully this will benefit someone. As you may notice from my sig, and this is directed to the person who asked the original question, I have a homebrew signature randomizer (well, technically it's a signature rotater) that you can have if you want. It's very homebrew though, so it may Require Some Setup(tm). -- John Buttery Mulder, please explain to me the scientific significance of 'the whammy'... X-Files (Web page temporarily unavailable) PGP signature
Re: defining a macro to sz an attachment
The shell script sounds like a good idea; I'm trying to implement it but
I'm getting a funny error when I try to execute this:
macro attach o ":pipe-entry\ncat /tmp/001 ; sz /tmp/001\n" "Send file"
It's saying "key is not bound" when a quick check of the "?" help screen
shows clearly that it is.
In other news, I tried the shell script idea but this block of code I
have isn't working right either:
while read LINE; do
echo $TMPFILE "${LINE}";
done
Obviously there is more to the script than that, but that's the part
that's failing; *some* file is being written, but for binary files, the
output is only about 3% of the size of the source (text files seem to work
fine though).
Either one of these plans would work fine for me, although the shell
script is probably preferable since it seems to be more robust and
applicable to other things. Any ideas?
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 04:39:31PM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:04:23AM -0500, John Buttery wrote:
Basically, the end result is that if I have a file called
"stressre1.exe" (for example) attached to an email, I can write a macro
that when invoked will do "sz stressre1.exe" as if I had saved the
attachment, exited mutt, and typed that at the shell.
This is not currently possible. I'm not even sure how you would script that
sort of functionality either, because you'd have to have some language
constructs that say 'get-me-the-name-of-message-102-attachment-1', which
would be rather difficult. Your best bet is to just create a shell script
which does this that you can pipe a file to and executes what command you
want. You can just pick a temporary file name.
me
defining a macro to sz an attachment
This is less a question about a specific implementation (although I would like to know how to do this) and more about the concept in general; is it possible to, at the stroke of a key (macro), have mutt save an attachment to a file and then run a shell commandline with the saved file's name somewhere in that commandline? The specific effect I'm trying to achieve is to be able to be in the attachments menu, select one of the attachments, and press a key to have it sent to my terminal via ZMODEM, using the UNIX utility "sz". I can't use the pipe command, because sz wants the file on its commandline, not to its stdin. I've searched the manual, and although I suspect this procedure is possible, I can't figure out how to do it. Basically, the end result is that if I have a file called "stressre1.exe" (for example) attached to an email, I can write a macro that when invoked will do "sz stressre1.exe" as if I had saved the attachment, exited mutt, and typed that at the shell. TIA, John
Re: Using uncolor to remove all body/header/index patterns
It does say that, but right below it, it says that you can use the special token * to remove all entries...but I can't seem to make it work as advertised. Or am I misunderstanding the instructions? My understanding of "can be applied to the index object only" is that if you have two patterns, "abc" and "abcdefg" you can't do something like: uncolor body ab* ...and have it remove both of them; you have to match the pattern exactly. Except that there's special interpretation of * by itself, that purges the list. On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 01:15:52PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: Isn't your problem explained in the first paragraph of the manual? Of course, I don't know *why* it is that way, or if it can be changed, but sounds to me like what you're trying to do is not currently supported by Mutt. John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 24 Aug 2000: Anyway, here's the relevant passage from the book of mutt(1), section 3.7: Note: The uncolor command can be applied to the index object only. -- ---- John ButteryIlluminati Online Customer Service MacOS 8.x+ Tip: If you hold down the Control key and click, you can use popup menus with commands tailored to the object you're clicking on. http://www.io.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using uncolor to remove all body/header/index patterns
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 04:05:14PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 24 Aug 2000: As an additional data point: in one of my other rcfiles, I am using the command "uncolor index *" without problems (no quotes in the rcfile). So it seems the problem only crops up when trying to do it inside a folder-hook. No. Based on what you quoted from the manual (I haven't checked it myself), the problem is that you can only do "uncolor *" on index, not body or anything else. Hey, you're right! This works: folder-hook . uncolor index * ...but the same thing doesn't work when substituting "body" or "header" for "index". Odd. Can I suggest a feature? :) Or, better yet, is there a special token to target them, such as using ~N to specifically color New messages? There is: ~P Thanks. You can look up the list of pattern operators in "man muttrc" or the Mutt manual. Oh, great, you had to show me that. There goes another 10 hours of my life fiddling with my .muttrc file. :) -- -------- John ButteryIlluminati Online Customer Service Illuminati Shell Account Tip: If you have an anonymous FTP directory, you can create a "link" to that directory in your home directory. Simply type the following command and a directory called "ftpsite" will be created in your home directory. Then just type "cd ftpsite" from your login and you're there! ln -s ~ftp/pub/usr/$USER ~/ftpsite http://www.io.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
