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 addr
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
themselv
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 to tell mutt
> that an email is from a mailing list, I use to tell mutt that I
> want to respond to the list it was from (instead of to the author of the
> email, or whatever).
Uh huh. And
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,
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 t
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
-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
> somethi
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 bee
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.
msg25697
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
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 t
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
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 ma
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
Descri
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
> so
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 consi
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 M
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
msg2598
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 reas
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 p
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 ge
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 clari
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
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 RFC1521-compli
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 *I
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 elega
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 pre
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_
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 be
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 Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:31:01PM +0100:
>
> The point is that there're lots of people having to use it at work. Even
> if those people are familiar to the standards, what shall they do if
> they're not abled to convince someone with the power of decission no
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 th
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 bast
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 un
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. Solar
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.
>
>
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 re-submit
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 si
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 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 st
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,
> wh
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 th
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 s
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 keeper1 said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 12:48:23PM -0500:
> Greetings! As a newbie to mutt, I was wondering if somebody could direct
> me to a site that has a howto for mutt and gnupg to get me started.
http://www.mutt.org
msg26430/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 Martin Karlsson said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:27:45PM +0200:
> Seems you haven't compiled mutt with support for compressed folders.
GAR. Thanks, that was it. Some days you're the windshield, and some
days you're the bug.
msg26440/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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?
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 bein
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 04:41:57PM -0500:
>
> the message is signed, excellent! Totally valid in the court of law ;-) Bah,
> will not be necessary: be sure to bring with you your curriculum, specially
> your best Perl script. :- Over and out.
Here:
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:03:29AM -0700:
>
> 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).
Goes back to FIDONET
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 comp
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 Peter T. Abplanalp said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:00:39AM -0700:
>
> ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the
> keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your
> key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes gpg, i get the sam
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
Descri
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: P
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, an
begin quoting what David Champion said on Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:47:51AM -0600:
> For doing this between two servers *neither* of which you have access
> to, I don't see a way to automate it, since there's no direct means of
> getting the folder tree structure in mutt and passing it to a script.
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 prob
begin quoting what Sven Guckes said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:39:43AM +0200:
>
> feature request denied.
>
> macro index c !
That breaks "? for list" functionality. It would be better to assign
it to another key:
macro index I "!\r"
Then get used to using "I" when you want it.
msg266
begin quoting what [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:04:41PM +0100:
>
> But I was wondering how other people do this and sign all outgoinging
> emails. Do you just accept that you need to enter your password every
> so often, and "thats life" so to speak?
Yes.
If it bothers yo
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
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
