Re: DOS prompts (was "Re: char % as quote")

[Dave Pearson]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:38:57PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> Dave --
> 
> % Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always
> % used the ">" character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of
> % WinDOS since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been
> % ">" for that length of time.
> 
> I beg to differ. The old DOS prompt was just > ($g) and then became C>
> ($n$g) -- before anyone had second hard drives. There are a number of
> variables used (b,d,e,g,l,m,n,p,q,t,v) that can be put together how you
> wish.

That's agreeing with me, not differing with me. I said "used", I didn't say
"was only". We're on about the terminating character here.

> These days, the default prompt is $p$g, which gives you the path and the
> greater symbol. It's been that since at least DOS 6 and I'd bet a Twinkie
> since DOS 3.3.

I can probably remember as far back as about DOS 3.1 and the default prompt
of the default shell was $p$g.

-- 
Dave Pearson:  | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.davep.org/  | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
Mutt:  | muttrc2html   - muttrc -> HTML utility
http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode

Re: Maildir differences

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, David Rock [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I have switched over to Maildir format and I have noticed a few things
> that don't seem quite right...
> 
> When I had mbox format set up, I had spool directories that procmail
> dumped mail to. I would read it, and then I would us an mbox-hook to
> move the read mail to a final destination. e.g.
> 
> mailboxes =mutt-spool
> mbox-hook mutt-spool =mutt

That generally would need to be mbox-hook =mutt-spool =mutt.  The old one
probably worked coincidentally, and now it doesn't because you've changed
things.

> This doesn't work anymore. The mail goes to the mutt-spool folder, but
> the mbox-hook doesn't ask to move mail to the mutt folder like it used
> to. Is this supposed to use the mutt folder as the procmail drop point
> AND the final resting place for mail? That's fine if it is supposed to
> work that way, I just need to know if that is the case.

It's supposed to work the way you tell it to, provided you tell it
correctly.  Maildirs don't have any significant special exceptions in the
regular build.

> Another thing I've noticed is my sent-mail doesn't work anymore as a
> Maildir. I had to keep it as an mbox format to get it to work. Is this
> right?

No.  Something else about your config must be messed up.  If your $record
points to a mailbox that is a Maildir, it should write to it correctly as a
Maildir.

> And finally, related to the spool file problem above, my
> /var/spool/mail/username does not ask to move to my mbox location
> anymore, even if I leave ~/Mail/inbox as an mbox format. What's going
> on?

Probably more to do with mismatched mbox-hooks or something.  Hard to say
without seeing more of your config.



msg23825/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Maildir differences

[David Rock]

I have switched over to Maildir format and I have noticed a few things
that don't seem quite right...

When I had mbox format set up, I had spool directories that procmail
dumped mail to. I would read it, and then I would us an mbox-hook to
move the read mail to a final destination. e.g.

mailboxes =mutt-spool
mbox-hook mutt-spool =mutt

This doesn't work anymore. The mail goes to the mutt-spool folder, but
the mbox-hook doesn't ask to move mail to the mutt folder like it used
to. Is this supposed to use the mutt folder as the procmail drop point
AND the final resting place for mail? That's fine if it is supposed to
work that way, I just need to know if that is the case.

Another thing I've noticed is my sent-mail doesn't work anymore as a
Maildir. I had to keep it as an mbox format to get it to work. Is this
right?

And finally, related to the spool file problem above, my
/var/spool/mail/username does not ask to move to my mbox location
anymore, even if I leave ~/Mail/inbox as an mbox format. What's going
on?

Thanks

-- 
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



msg23824/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] html email

[Marco Fioretti]

> 
> I suppose it's equally valid for them to say, "I, the sender, should be able
> to control how a message is presented to you."
> 
No, that's the whole point, because with email the (time, money) extra
expense associated with downloading useless html formatting is paid by the
receiver, not the sender.

Even if both receiver and sender use GUI mua's, and regardless of the
OS.

Marco
> 
> -- 
> Mike Schiraldi
> VeriSign Applied Research



-- 
The whole world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes.
-- George Gobel

Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:09:09PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Michael Montagne, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Isn't HTML just text?  The tags are evaluated and formatted at the
> client.  So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be?
> Or is it the links and scripts that are often included?  

Yes.

I'm not even going to INCLUDE it here.
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/misc/msghtml
This came into a tech support alias I watch.


-- 
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unix Systems Administrator  |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Specializing in FreeBSD |http://www.over-yonder.net/

"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
  haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"

Re: I hate to ask this....

[David T-G]

Kelly --

...and then Kelly Scroggins said...
% 
% I hate to ask this.  It must be right under my
% nose.

Probably so.


% 
% But, I've looked in the headers of this lists
% messages, I've looked on the web site too, but I
% can't find anything that tells me how to
% unsubscribe.

You mean you didn't save your welcome message when you signed up?


% 
% Would someone please tell me?

Nope.  You're stuck here.  It's like the mafia; once you're in, you can
never get out.  Your only hope is to turn off your computer, start
walking, and never look back.

If you were really desperate, you could try sending a note to 

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

and see what happens.


% 
% Thanks,
% kelly

HTH & HAND


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg23821/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
> the procmail recipe seems to work fine

Except it doesn't.  if the mail has an attachment.  It no work good.
:)  I have a lot of Pine-using friends, and this is what happens when
they send me an encrypted mail with attachments (which happens often
enough to be bothersome).

And, while Esc-P makes this situation a bit better to deal with, I get
a LOT of encrypted and/or signed mail.  I receive prolly 400-600
messages a day, of which I would estimate about 20% to 30% are signed
or encrypted.  Having to hit esc-P for every single one of them (we're
talking between 80-180 messages a day, in the extremes) gets extremely
tedious.  Forgetting to do so (which happens often) when I'm replying
to, say, an old-style signed message means I then also have to weed
out a lot of crap from the reply that I (IMO) shouldn't need to.  Mutt
should do this for me, by automatically recognizing that the message
is a PGP-somethingorother message.

I would make the argument that computers are very good at doing
repetetive, tedious tasks.  People aren't, and typically don't enjoy
them. We use computers to make our lives easier, to remove as many of
the repetetive, tedious tasks as possible.  This is a perfect example
of when that should be done, IMO.

While yes, it is possible to make mutt do this by implementing a
macro, it seems to me that a sufficiently significant amount of time
and bandwidth has been wasted by people on this list REPEATEDLY
explaining how to do this, and REPEATEDLY arguing about whether mutt
really ought to do this automatically (or more accurately, to provide
the option to do so), that it seems the answer to the latter question
should be obvious...

> and if you hit e to edit the raw message, you'll see that the
> message hasn't been modified, and it's still in 'traditional' form;
> it just has had the appropriate mime type added to the headers up
> top.

That's still modifying the message...  the headers are part of the
message.  I'm against MTA/MDA munging of mail in all its forms, when
not absolutely necessary (i.e. when passing messages between
incompatible mail systems).  The MDA shouldn't NEED to know about PGP
or any other user application; its job is to DELIVER mail, not muck
with it.

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8Uf3JdjdlQoHP510RAorIAKCe2lp/vPSum3TPuBqW8qO8hRtVDACfSXuy
h9tOfUa2BfSn/Qf6K0v15Nc=
=pI+e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

I hate to ask this....

[Kelly Scroggins]

I hate to ask this.  It must be right under my
nose.

But, I've looked in the headers of this lists
messages, I've looked on the web site too, but I
can't find anything that tells me how to
unsubscribe.

Would someone please tell me?

Thanks,
kelly

Re: [OT] html email

[Samuel Padgett]

Rob 'Feztaa' Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Alas! Alexander Skwar spake thus:
> > Well, sure it is - however don't all the HTML capable MUAs convert texts
> > like http://this-is-not.a.link.de into a clickable link?  Mozilla does.
> 
> Mutt highlights that as a mail, and urlview recognizes it as a link. No
> need for HTML-enabled mailers at all. Not clickable, but still a link.

It's even clickable if you use Gnome terminal.  (I don't.)

Sam

Re: \223 and \224

[David T-G]

Chris, et al --

...and then Christopher S. Swingley said...
% 
% > I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut!
% > headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted.  Check for messages
% > with 8859 and 1252 in the body.
% 
% That was the trick (8859 in mutt-users).  Looks like the solution is:

Good :-)


% 
% set display_filter=demoroniser
% 
% It's a Perl script available at:
% 
% http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/

Oh, right!  Heck, I probably even had that in my mutt-users folder; I
meant to go and check it out.


% 
% Thanks.

HTH :-)


% 
% Chris
% -- 
% Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689
% Computer / Network Manager  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page:
% University of Alaska Fairbanks  www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg23817/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: \223 and \224

[Christopher S. Swingley]

> I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut!
> headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted.  Check for messages
> with 8859 and 1252 in the body.

That was the trick (8859 in mutt-users).  Looks like the solution is:

set display_filter=demoroniser

It's a Perl script available at:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/

Thanks.

Chris
-- 
Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689
Computer / Network Manager  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page:
University of Alaska Fairbanks  www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle

Re: \223 and \224

[David T-G]

Chris --

...and then Christopher S. Swingley said...
% 
% This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the
% mailing list archives, so here goes:

It is there; I remember it.


% 
% Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set?
% The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223
% (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote).  In the original
% file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously).
% 
% Maybe a procmail recipe that fixes it with sed?  Any thoughts?

I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut!
headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted.  Check for messages
with 8859 and 1252 in the body.


% 
% I'm using Mutt 1.3.25 on Debian sid with LANG=en_US and /etc/locales.gen
% set to en_US ISO-8859-1.
% 
% Thanks,

HTH & HAND


% 
% Chris
% -- 
% Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689
% Computer / Network Manager  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page:
% University of Alaska Fairbanks  www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg23815/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: \223 and \224

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, Christopher S. Swingley [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where I've seen that.  It's
> certainly not as common as the \222 - \224 issue.  It looks like sed
> won't do the trick because it doesn't understand octal (\222 - \224) or
> hexidecimal (\x92 - \x93) escapes.  Perl will, but that's an awful lot
> of overhead.

super-sed supports extended syntax, including PCREs:





msg23814/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: \223 and \224

[Christopher S. Swingley]

Quoting Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set?
> > The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223
> > (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote).  In the original
> > file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously).
> 
> That looks exactly like what I've been getting.
> Do you also get '?' chars coming up unexpectedly?

That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where I've seen that.  It's
certainly not as common as the \222 - \224 issue.  It looks like sed
won't do the trick because it doesn't understand octal (\222 - \224) or
hexidecimal (\x92 - \x93) escapes.  Perl will, but that's an awful lot
of overhead.

I was also mistaken in my description of the characters -- 0x91 is `,
0x92 is ', 0x93 is ``, and 0x94 is ''.  See:

http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html#CP1252

for details on Microsoft's ``extension'' of ISO-8859-1, properly
called CP1252, but often advertised as iso-8859-1 in email and HTML
pages generated by Microsoft software.

Chris
-- 
Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689
Computer / Network Manager  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page:
University of Alaska Fairbanks  www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, Ron Secord [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > echo test | sendmail recipient && tail -f /var/log/mail*
> 
> Got:
> bash: sendmai: command not found
  ^^^

If that's a paste, you typoed the name.



msg23812/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: \223 and \224

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Christopher S. Swingley blurted
> Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set?
> The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223
> (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote).  In the original
> file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously).

That looks exactly like what I've been getting.
Do you also get '?' chars coming up unexpectedly?

- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UeYJHpvrrTa6L5oRAoetAJ994Y+EKkPGYZ7fRzijMVn7Pi/ZeACeO7kn
Wrj8ATWH8ByUf2rPIbuM6yU=
=pJN2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

\223 and \224

[Christopher S. Swingley]

Hello,

This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the
mailing list archives, so here goes:

Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set?
The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223
(left single quote) and \224 (right single quote).  In the original
file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not ASCII, obviously).

Maybe a procmail recipe that fixes it with sed?  Any thoughts?

I'm using Mutt 1.3.25 on Debian sid with LANG=en_US and /etc/locales.gen
set to en_US ISO-8859-1.

Thanks,

Chris
-- 
Christopher S. Swingley phone: 907-474-2689
Computer / Network Manager  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IARC -- Frontier ProgramGPG and PGP keys at my web page:
University of Alaska Fairbanks  www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Will Yardley]

Ron Secord wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 1969 06:59 pm, you wrote:
> 
> >> what does your postconf -n output look like?
> > > what happens in your logs if you do:
> 
> I tried the postconf -n and got:
> bash: postconf: command not found

it's probably in /usr/sbin - which is most likely not in your path
unless you're root.  try /usr/sbin/postconf -n or try running it as
root.
 
> I tried that and it worked. (I recieved the email)
> 
> > echo test | sendmail recipient && tail -f /var/log/mail*
> 
> Got:
> bash: sendmai: command not found
 
echo test | /usr/bin/sendmail recipient && tail -f /var/log/mail*

> > > post some logs.
> >
> > Definitely.
> 
> I found an errors log in /var/log/mail and it had just one line:
> Jan 24 11:02:24 prexar procmail(3433): Suspicious rcfile
> "/home/ron/.procmail"

procmail is default LDA with mandrake i think. it's very picky about
permissions. change the permissions on your .procmailrc and all your
other procmail files so that they're not world readable.
 
> The "info" log was quite lengthy so I'll attach it. Hopefully, this ML 
> accepts attachments:)

it's better to post specific log segments. ie try to send a message in
mutt and see if anything's logged; then grep for a particular queue ID
relating to that message.
 
> There's also9 one other thing that I will post in another mesage as
> this one is getting pretty long. Thanks again

do you have sendmail set to anything in your .muttrc?

the default is "/usr/sbin/sendmail -oem -oi"

that should work ok with postfix - works ok on my machine anyway.

grep sendmail .muttrc (or whatever your mutt config file is)
if it's not there, what happens when you do:

echo test | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oem -oi recipient ?
are there any errors to the command line?

what are the logs that ONE command generates in your mail logs?

w

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Ron Secord]

This is a followup to my other message. 

Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This is messed up. It should be [EMAIL PROTECTED] shouldn't it? I'm 
getting that with every message I send with Mutt. If I send a message 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it will not go thru, but if I sent one to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will get it. (Both prexar.com and ime.net are the 
same ISP)

Received: from prexar.com ([142.167.38.33]) by mta1.prexar.com
          (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license 
a8541e342b4da52589eebe0522426823)
          with ESMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
          for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:31:35 -0500
Received: by prexar.com (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 2EA3C1A071; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:32:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:32:13 -0500
From: Ron Secord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
Regards,
  Cordman

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Volker Moell]

Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> 
> > I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail.  But in my
> > eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA.
> It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_
> your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;)

Sure. "D" like in "delivery". But why *modifying* if there is no failure
in the mail syntax and if the user agent is able to handle this correct
formatted mail (even when it's "old-fashioned")?

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

"If you cannot convince them, confuse them."
   -- Harry S. Truman

Re: recognizing traditional PGP

[Volker Moell]

David T-G wrote:
> 
> Hokay.  As below, I just wanted to make sure of what we were discussing.
> I've changed the subject line to help :-)

Good, thanks!


> You realize what you're asking, right?  With PGP/MIME, mutt simply has to
> look at the headers to see what it must do, and that's already done, and
> it's pretty resistant to problems.  With inline signing, mutt now has to
> look at the body for these magic strings
[...]

Yes, I'm aware of those potential problems.


> Now, we clearly see that it's not impossible; that's what esc-P does for
> us.  It could cause problems, though, if it were the default behavior,
> and it would mean reading every mail body for parsing as well.  [Is that
> more expensive in an mbox file?  I dunno; I'm not a programmer.]

It's an additional checking, so it *is* more expensive. *How* expensive
it is, I don't know. (See below.)


> Someday :-)

Yeah, this seems to be the most essential word in out thread. :-)


> % mail).  It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp
> % would become a variable ("set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes"), so
> % that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of
> % handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible
> % workarounds for the other 50%).
> Hmmm...

With this I mean, you can
  - press  in the index
  - press , , ,  in the pager
  - press  at the end of a message
  - delete (in various ways) a mail
  - jump to a mail
  - ...
to view a mail. Do you really want do set a macro for each of these (and
surely more!) keybindings? Not really, at least not me. So a message-hook
seems to be the only senseful place to implement a "check-traditional on
demand".  With macros it's only a nice workaround. IMHO.


> Understood.  I think that all is well but I'm still working on my patch
> cocktail for .27 and won't have a use for force_traditional anyway (since
> I don't use 8-bit chars; I'm a boring American).

BTW: Thanks a lot for your work! :-)

I wasn't really aware of the fact that all of the traditional PGP stuff
is highly in employment. I started using mutt together with making my
first PGP experience about 4 months ago. Somehow I rather thought that
no one of the developer is interested in implementing this "strongly
deprecated" old-style -- beside of the users wish. Now I see that this
was rank nonsense. I beg for pardon, for my postings sound assumedly
rude.


> % Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly)
> % intricately.
> You've lost me here.  Is it just me, or did you not complete your
> thought?

It's ok for a single mail or two.  But I receive a lot of them. And
pressing Esc-P (or so) everytime to be able to read it (most of them are
encryptet!), *is* circumstantial.


> % Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's
> % not really good for me.
[...]
> That's interesting...  It took longer by the clock to *not* check a
> thousand messages for traditional pgp :-)

Maybe there were no or not many traditional style mail in it?

I tested it in a folder with about 2100 mails. Entering the folder (with
no folder-hooks) in about 2 seconds, but checking traditional with

  macro index  \
  "." \
  "check-traditional-pgp for complete folder"

(sorry for the long line) takes about 9 seconds. And there are only
about 650 old-style signed and/or encrypted mails in it.

But normaly there is no need to check the complete folder at once.  A
checking on demand (i.e. only if a mail is accessed) would suffice.  But
maybe exactly here is the problem... in detecting the demand.


> I can't answer your latter point, since I haven't seen any examples of
> failure, but I agree that the current limitations mean lots of very
> similar macros.  It's all we have for now, though.

It's not only the fact that the macros all are similar. The other thing
is to cover all possibilities. If someone implements a new way in
entering a mail it doesn't work here again. Again a pro for "on demand".


> % The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp
> % variable.
> Fair enough; to each his own.  I don't think I'd mind having such a
> variable, either, since I could leave it off.

You really want everyone interested in handling with the old PGP style
write lots of macros and finally still forgetting some? IMHO all those
people want old-style work everytime, not just for some special
keybindings (and not for some other).


But if you say it's hard to implement the "on demand" (I really don't
have any clue about the mutt sources and PGP at all), macros are way
better than nothing. (Up to now I just thought it was your [or the
author's] intention only to support macros.)


Good night (for the Europeans),
happy evening (for you Americans),
and happy slaying (for Buffy!) ;-)

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the
 flexibility of assem

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Ron Secord]

On Wednesday 31 December 1969 06:59 pm, you wrote:

>> what does your postconf -n output look like?
> > what happens in your logs if you do:

I tried the postconf -n and got:
bash: postconf: command not found

> > /usr/sbin/sendmail -t
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: test
> > blah
> > ^D

I tried that and it worked. (I recieved the email)

> echo test | sendmail recipient && tail -f /var/log/mail*

Got:
bash: sendmai: command not found

> > post some logs.
>
> Definitely.

I found an errors log in /var/log/mail and it had just one line:
Jan 24 11:02:24 prexar procmail(3433): Suspicious rcfile
"/home/ron/.procmail"

The "info" log was quite lengthy so I'll attach it. Hopefully, this ML 
accepts attachments:)

There's also9 one other thing that I will post in another mesage as 
this one is getting pretty long. Thanks again

-- 
Regards,
  Cordman


Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/master[1875]: daemon started
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: AD230D049: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: AD230D049: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: AD230D049: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=278, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BA5B8D05E: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BA5B8D05E: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BA5B8D05E: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=278, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BB29DD063: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BB29DD063: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BB29DD063: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=278, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BBD3BD065: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BBD3BD065: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BBD3BD065: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=283, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BC46ED066: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BC46ED066: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BC46ED066: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=278, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BCD68D067: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BCD68D067: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BCD68D067: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=278, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BE866D068: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BE866D068: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BE866D068: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=270, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BF0E6D069: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BF0E6D069: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: BFBC0D06A: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BF0E6D069: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=409, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: BFBC0D06A: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: BFBC0D06A: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=403, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: C0748D06B: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: C0748D06B: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/pickup[1877]: CB7A2D06C: uid=501 from=
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: C0748D06B: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=557, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: CB7A2D06C: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:21 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: CB7A2D06C: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=416, 
nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/local[1929]: BE866D068: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
relay=local, delay=48911, status=bounced (unknown user: "cordman")
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: 26A7BD06D: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: 26A7BD06D: from=<>, size=1761, nrcpt=1 
(queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1915]: BF0E6D069: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
relay=none, delay=47419, status=deferred (Name service error for ime.net: Host not 
found, try again)
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1942]: BFBC0D06A: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
relay=none, delay=30357, status=deferred (Name service error for ime.net: Host not 
found, try again)
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/cleanup[1893]: 357D0D070: 
message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/qmgr[1878]: 357D0D070: from=<>, size=2111, nrcpt=1 
(queue active)
Jan 24 07:15:22 prexar postfix/smtp[1915]: C0748D06B: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
relay=n

Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[David T-G]

Michael --

...and then Michael Montagne said...
% 
% >On 25/01/02, from the brain of Marco tumbled:
% > You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds
% > box ... at the expense of the receiver.
...
% 
% I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email
% with mutt now, I appreciate text email.  But something I don't

Good for you :-)


% understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone.
% Isn't HTML just text?  The tags are evaluated and formatted at the
% client.  So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be?
% Or is it the links and scripts that are often included?  

If we assume that content is size x, then we can also assume that
any formatting thereof must increase the message size from x to x+n.
Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for generated HTML to have n
much greater than x.  Hence the size argument; every letter takes twice
(thrice? more?) as much bandwidth, processing, and disk space when
formatted in HTML versus plain ASCII.

Off-topic meandering:
I think it would be lovely to automatically compress all email before
sending and have it opened on the other end, but that not only gets
into more MIME types (I think it could be done pretty easily but haven't
played with it, and certainly haven't thought about the troubles of, say,
searching within a compressed mail body) but also costs processing power
to package up and then open up the item.  For those on a dialup link,
though, it could be a real blessing.


% I'd like to be more informed as I operate in an office full of windows
% users who like to format everything in sight.

Best of luck!


% 
% -- 
% Michael Montagne
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% http://www.boora.com


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg23804/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Michael Montagne blurted
> I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email
> with mutt now, I appreciate text email.  But something I don't
> understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone.
> Isn't HTML just text?  The tags are evaluated and formatted at the

Sure is.

> client.  So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be?

That would be the way I understand it. One or two don't hurt but once
those few extra bytes are multiplied thousands of even millions of times
it's a bigger deal.


- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UdwRHpvrrTa6L5oRAtTGAKCvWP8ohHbeA3A88Io6p3R6XvEzZgCeIHcB
cBCrY82wrUFxoAOaf/Ejlog=
=UNBY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, Michael Montagne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Isn't HTML just text?  The tags are evaluated and formatted at the
> client.  So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be?

Yes.  "Just text" doesn't mean much; text or binary, it's all 1's and 0's
in the end.  The important thing is the amount of 1's and 0's going around.
HTML versions of files are, in my experience, about 3x the size of the text
version.  This would be less of an issue if that was to actually add any
value, but in the case of most people it's just used to send text without
any formatting anyway, or text formatted in ways they think is "pretty" but
that makes it unreadable.



msg23802/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[Michael Montagne]

>On 25/01/02, from the brain of Marco tumbled:
> You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds
> box ... at the expense of the receiver.
> 
> Never talk about text muas and operating systems when fighting HTML
> mail, point out that it's bad EVEN for outlook/windows users. They
> don't get it, and most times, actually, it's not their fault.
> 
>   Marco

I often read about the evils os HTML email and since I do all my email
with mutt now, I appreciate text email.  But something I don't
understand is the argument that it slows down the internet for everyone.
Isn't HTML just text?  The tags are evaluated and formatted at the
client.  So is it just that there is more text than there needs to be?
Or is it the links and scripts that are often included?  
I'd like to be more informed as I operate in an office full of windows
users who like to format everything in sight.

-- 
Michael Montagne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.boora.com

Re: S/MIME patch for Mutt-1.3.26

[Mike Schiraldi]

> This context colored indicator patch seems to have no effect when
> Mutt (versions 1.2.5 and 1.3.27) is linked with slang (version 1.4.4).

Yow! I'll take a look and post my findings.


-- 
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research



smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Ralf Hildebrandt]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:40:48PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:

> > I removed Postfix and Mutt and re-installed them. I can now
> > send/receive mail with Kmail & Sylpheed, but not Mutt, which leads me
> > to believe it has something to do with Postfix. I can, however,
> > receive mail with Mutt.

Logs! Read the Logs!

> > I tried installing sendmail but it conflicts with Postfix and the
> > install failed. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Obviously it fails. They do the same task.

> what does your postconf -n output look like?
> what happens in your logs if you do:
> 
> /usr/sbin/sendmail -t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: test
> blah
> ^D

echo test | sendmail recipient && tail -f /var/log/mail*

> post some logs.

Definitely.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V A)   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite Campus Virchow-Klinikum Tel.  +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Referat V A - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax.  +49 (0)30-450 570-916
"The Internet is like a giant jellyfish. You can't step on it. You
can't go around it. You've got to get through it."-John Evans

Re: Postfix messed up?

[Will Yardley]

Ron Secord wrote:
> 
> I removed Postfix and Mutt and re-installed them. I can now
> send/receive mail with Kmail & Sylpheed, but not Mutt, which leads me
> to believe it has something to do with Postfix. I can, however,
> receive mail with Mutt.
> 
> I tried installing sendmail but it conflicts with Postfix and the
> install failed. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

what does your postconf -n output look like?
what happens in your logs if you do:

/usr/sbin/sendmail -t
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
blah
^D

is there anything in your logs after you try to send mail from mutt?
does sending a message appear to succeed?

kmail and sylpheed might be using SMTP to send mail, whereas mutt
doesn't speak SMTP and it's using the sendmail command.

post some logs.

w

Postfix messed up?

[Ron Secord]

I'm running LM 8.1 and have been setting up Mutt (1.3.25i). Everything 
was going pretty good until I started playing around with my server 
settings. For awhile, I couldn't send/receive any mail even with Kmail 
or sylpheed.

I removed Postfix and Mutt and re-installed them. I can now 
send/receive mail with Kmail & Sylpheed, but not Mutt, which leads me 
to believe it has something to do with Postfix. I can, however, receive 
mail with Mutt.

I tried installing sendmail but it conflicts with Postfix and the 
install failed. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

-- 
Regards,
  Cordman

Problem with locale?

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all
I'm having a problem with an FAQ
I keep getting ? and char codes etc instead of certain charicters.
I've checked my LC_CTYPE and it's 'en_US' but er.. I'm not sure what to
so with it. The FAQ says to set it to the correct value but what's that,
and how do I do it?

I'm a tad confused.


Thanks very much
- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UcE3HpvrrTa6L5oRAqT7AKCwz6B2tHFpkfL2MosWMDvlcbecYACeKAo5
e2iQTG2ejfTJr9UdO5mV+3A=
=JcGR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: S/MIME patch for Mutt-1.3.26

[Alain Bench]

[followups set to users list only]

Hello Mike,

 On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 2:34:51 PM -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote:

> indicator.patch changes the behavior of the indicator bar when it is
> defined as "mono indicator reverse" (the default). [...] With this
> patch, the indicator bar, when set to "reverse", will have a
> foreground color set to the background color that the current message
> would have if it were not selected, and a background color set to the
> foreground color that the current message would have if it were not
> selected.

This context colored indicator patch seems to have no effect when
Mutt (versions 1.2.5 and 1.3.27) is linked with slang (version 1.4.4).
Tested on 2 different terminals (directly on Linux console and from
Cygwin's telnet), the indicator is simply black ink on white paper as
without the patch.

I know nothing about Ncurses, not even how to see it's version, but
tried to link with it: The indicator seems to react well. It takes the
reversed colors the current index line should be. But, for an unrelated
to your patch reason, the color scheme of all the screen is messed up:
in foreground what should be white appears black, red appears cyan,
yellow is green, and blue is magenta... Green, magenta, cyan and white
appear correctly. Background colors are also messed up, but not in the
same way. And sometimes changing an item color (let's say "quoted4")
will also change in some way the color of another item (say "status").
What have they put in my glass?

Quick come back to Slang! And noted somewhere to not try again drugs
too strong for me. ;-)

Someone knows how to make indicator.patch work with Slang?


Bye!Alain.

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Rob 'Feztaa' Park]

Alas! Volker Moell spake thus:

> I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail.  But in my
> eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA.

It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_
your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;)

-- 
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"I'm sorry, our software is perfect. The problem must be you."
-- Dogbert



msg23794/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: char % as quote

[Rob 'Feztaa' Park]

Alas! Thomas Hurst spake thus:

> What's the bet that OE or so actually impliments something like this
> sometime in future.  Would certainly beat a bunch of screwed poorly
> generated HTML.

If it's a Good Thing, you can bet Microsoft will have nothing to do with
it.

-- 
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end."
-- Douglas Adams



msg23793/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[Mathias Gygax]

On Fre, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:00:51 -0500, parv wrote:
> well, i get around 100-300 messages a day from various mailing lists
> and it has not bothered me, resources wise, a bit on a single user,
> me, stand alone machine.

i'm subscribed to over 150 mailing lists and get over 1700 mails a day.

mutt performs very well, even on not so speedy computers.

while processing rather 1.5MB of text information a day, i like it.

Re: recognizing traditional PGP (was "Re: validating traditional signitures")

[David T-G]

Volker --

...and then Volker Moell said...
% 
% David T-G wrote:
% > 
% > *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now
% > it hasn't been a concern.
% 
% I thought I read about the whole "Problems with PGP mails from Outlook"
% more often in the last months.

Right.  I can't pin it down, but in this case I define "recently" as six
months or so.


% 
% 
% > Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros?  These
% > macros simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but
% > usually not spend the time on doing so for all messages.  Macros are
% > no longer (in 1.3.x where x=>20 at least) necessary for traditional
% > verification.
% 
% I meant the whole old-style handling, not this point in special.

Hokay.  As below, I just wanted to make sure of what we were discussing.
I've changed the subject line to help :-)


% 
% The main thing which bothers me: I get very often old-style signed/
% encrypted mails. Every time when I open such a mail I have to press

Sure.


% Esc-P per default, which is annoing in my eyes. I would like to have
% this to be done automatically like in the new-style. The common answers

You realize what you're asking, right?  With PGP/MIME, mutt simply has to
look at the headers to see what it must do, and that's already done, and
it's pretty resistant to problems.  With inline signing, mutt now has to
look at the body for these magic strings (which used to be the only way
to recognize a PGP message, since there *wasn't* any MIME yet) and then
turn things around to pull out the parts to validate and so on.  It's an
entirely different place to look and it's subject to false positives --
or, should I say, more subject than PGP/MIME.

Now, we clearly see that it's not impossible; that's what esc-P does for
us.  It could cause problems, though, if it were the default behavior,
and it would mean reading every mail body for parsing as well.  [Is that
more expensive in an mbox file?  I dunno; I'm not a programmer.]


% about this problem is "write a macro". Because a message-hook fails
% (resp. failed the last time I tried it, there was an endless loop), I
% have to write lots of macros (for every possible key I can enter this

Yeah; it would be nice to be able to bind multiple keys to a single macro
that's smart enough to do some checking and fire off the right function
(reply, mail, forward).  Someday :-)


% mail).  It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp
% would become a variable ("set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes"), so
% that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of
% handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible
% workarounds for the other 50%).

Hmmm...


% 
% (The other problems when *writing* old-style PGP mails probably do not
% exist anymore. I didn't had the time to test the patches announce here
% in the last weeks.)

Understood.  I think that all is well but I'm still working on my patch
cocktail for .27 and won't have a use for force_traditional anyway (since
I don't use 8-bit chars; I'm a boring American).


% 
% 
% > All you have to do is hit esc-P and it's all there, AIUI, so either build
% > esc-P into your macro, folder-hook an esc-P on all messages when you
% > enter,
% 
% Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly)
% intricately.

You've lost me here.  Is it just me, or did you not complete your
thought?


% 
% Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's
% not really good for me.

Certainly something to consider.  I wonder how much of a problem it will
be, though?

  [zero] [1:16pm] ~>  cat /tmp/muttrc

  folder-hook .  'push 
"."'

  folder-hook .  'push ""'

  [zero] [1:17pm] ~>  frm -n =F.funnies | tail -1 ; ls -lF Mail/F.funnies
  1009: LABLaughs Admin   LABLaughsAdult - January 25, 2002
  -rw---   1 davidtg  23642536 Jan 25 13:16 Mail/F.funnies
  [zero] [1:17pm] ~>  time mutt -F /tmp/muttrc -f =F.funnies
  ...
  1.020u 0.480s 0:06.10 24.5%0+0k 0+0io 881pf+0w
  [zero] [1:18pm] ~>  vi /tmp/muttrc
  (comment out the push line)
  [zero] [1:18pm] ~>  time mutt -F /tmp/muttrc -f =F.funnies
  ...
  0.960u 0.370s 0:06.51 20.4%0+0k 0+0io 881pf+0w

That's interesting...  It took longer by the clock to *not* check a
thousand messages for traditional pgp :-)  As you can see, though, it's
not that much of an impact.  I should think that you wouldn't notice the
checking even on a large folder -- where you will, no doubt, have had to
wait for a while for the loading.


% 
% Concerning macros: There are so many ways you can "enter" a mail that
% it's hard to detect them all; and (AFAIK) not all work with macros.

I can't answer your latter point, since I haven't seen any examples of
failure, but I agree that the current limitations mean lots of very
similar macros.  It's all we have for now, though.


% 
% The only good thing I see is to make a message-hook. But (kill me if
% it's 

Re: DOS prompts (was "Re: char % as quote")

[David T-G]

Dave --

...and then Dave Pearson said...
% 
% On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
% > 
% > Of course, good old Wintendo has always used the '>' character at the end
% > of the DOS prompt... [SNIP]
% 
% Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always used
% the ">" character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of WinDOS
% since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been ">" for
% that length of time.

I beg to differ.  The old DOS prompt was just > ($g) and then became C>
($n$g) -- before anyone had second hard drives.  There are a number of
variables used (b,d,e,g,l,m,n,p,q,t,v) that can be put together how you
wish.

These days, the default prompt is $p$g, which gives you the path and
the greater symbol.  It's been that since at least DOS 6 and I'd bet a
Twinkie since DOS 3.3.


% 
% -- 
% Dave Pearson:  | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
% http://www.davep.org/  | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
% Mutt:  | muttrc2html   - muttrc -> HTML utility
% http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode

HTH & HAND


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg23790/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Deleting Mass emails..

[darren chamberlain]

Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 01/24/2002:
> * and then Jeremy Blosser blurted
> > On Jan 23, Jason Nealis [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > What's the easyiest way to delete message 1-2000? 
> > 
> > D~m 1-2000
> > 
> > D   - delete-pattern
> > ~m 1-2000   - pattern for messages 1-2000
> 
> Would that make it
> D~m *
> 
> if I wanted to completely empty a mailbox?

There is the ~A pattern that matches all messages:

  D~A

will empty a mailbox.

(darren)

-- 
Optimization hinders evolution.

Re: macros help

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Jeremy Blosser blurted
> No, please read it again.  What it says is that ^ is an _alternative_ for
> specifying a control character when used in the _sequence_ portion of a
> macro.  \c is the only documented way to get a control character in the
> _key_ portion of a macro or keybinding.

That makes sense, it's not very clear though as both of us were reading
it the same way. On the whole I find the manul /relatively/ simple in
most places but that bit is just plain trickey :)


- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UZRYHpvrrTa6L5oRAgidAJwPAucwMjw3jT1BeJBo8ChZGxZSlQCeJh/z
Zp/tNhgynQb9sXF3Ir9J2Gg=
=mx+U
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: macros help

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, Benjamin Smith [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The following should be a working macro:
> 
> macro pager \cd 
> 
> This is infact contrary to the documented behaviour in the manual which
> says that a caret not \c indicates the control key. Is this a
> documentation bug?

No, please read it again.  What it says is that ^ is an _alternative_ for
specifying a control character when used in the _sequence_ portion of a
macro.  \c is the only documented way to get a control character in the
_key_ portion of a macro or keybinding.



msg23787/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Will Yardley]

Volker Moell wrote:
> 
> The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp
> variable.

sure. but according to the many previous discussions of this, there have
been problems with getting this to work.  so when you send a patch to
the mutt-dev list that works, i'm sure they'll be very happy to
integrate it into mutt.
 
> Personally I don't like it to modify my mails (e.g. with procmail).
> In the worst case the mails become corrupted and no more readable at
> all.  Apart from this I see no reason for modifying, the MUA can
> handle it.
 
the procmail recipe seems to work fine, and if you hit e to edit
the raw message, you'll see that the message hasn't been modified, and
it's still in 'traditional' form; it just has had the appropriate mime
type added to the headers up top.  if a message were to get messed up
this way, you could almost definitely (and easily) "fix" it.

but if you're really paranoid, have procmail copy the message to another
folder before you do anything.

obviously this isn't the best solution, but until someone comes up with
a way to do this automatically in mutt, it seems to work fine.

> > % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have

> > Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a
> > comma ;-)
> 
> Ok, in *this* case... :-)
 
write a patch! i am not a programmer; thus i will use the procmail
solution until there's a better one.

w

Re: macros help

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Benjamin Smith blurted
> The following should be a working macro:
> 
> macro pager \cd 
> 
> This is infact contrary to the documented behaviour in the manual which
> says that a caret not \c indicates the control key. Is this a
> documentation bug?

Must be, I don't know how I managed to get it working wiht ^D but it
didn't last long.
Your version works great.
Thanks guys!


- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UYhTHpvrrTa6L5oRAiiRAJ4ra/AZd2Xgg/+j7iycEDrPZWFCUwCcCcr4
vA8U8XePYvGbz9Pqztwpm4Y=
=eNUf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[Ken Wahl]

Roman Neuhauser on 25/01/2002 at 02:58 opined thusly:

> looks like there's just two MDA's in use: Procmail, and Maildrop. Both
> have their fine (and not so fine) points, which I'll summarize briefly
> 
> Procmail:
> + lots of prepackaged antispam filters
> - config files resemble uuencoded assembler
I honestly don't see it as more difficult than any scripting language
that I've encountered, but I know you are not alone in that opinion
either.

> - quite resource-hungry (keeps the whole message in memory while
>   processing it)

I'm using it on a Pentium 166 right now w/ 160 megs of PC100 SDRAM and it
handles it fine.  I can't imagine anything newer having a problem with
it.  It actually seems more expensive in terms of CPU cycles than memory
but like I said I'm using a P-166.

> - reportedly isn't completely safe (can lose your mail)
Would any effective MDA with the capability to dump to /dev/null be
completely safe?  I guess if you could 100% guarantee the scripts would
be free of operator error...?

To this I would add:
+++ Has been widely implemented and has copious web resources
dedicated to support and helping newbies get started.

> Maildrop:
> - not as popular as Procmail (fewer filter packages)
> + square head is not a prerequisite to understand the configuration
> - quite optimized (larger messages stored in temp files during
>   processing)
> + should be safer than Procmail
What makes it safer?  What if any functionality do I trade for this
safety?  Haven't used it so I can't say much else.

> I'm slowly getting the picture of the classes that would make this
> happen, and would like to ask you: is there something that you sorely
> lack in your favorite MDA? What is it?
I do wish Procmail were a little easier to debug.  Even with verbose
logging on it's hard to tell how/why it made filtering decisions.

-- 
Ken Wahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.kenwahl.org/mutt/
PGP/GPG Key C225AA5A: http://www.kenwahl.org/pubkey.gpg
Mutt: All mail clients suck, this one just sucks less..
Weaponized Linux Kernel 2.4.9-12 Uptime: 48 days, 20 min



msg23784/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Volker Moell]

Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 
> procmail or other MDAs will always be able to do it better, because they're
> looking at the message in exactly the right way at exactly the right time.
> With Mutt you're always going to have this effect not stick with the
> message (so you have to do it every time), you have to apply it when you
> enter the folder instead of as the message comes in, and the effect is not
> available in another MUA if you need to use one, even briefly.  This is by
> definition an MDA issue.  And the MDAs do it fine, so why not?

I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail.  But in my eyes
it's *not* the job of the MDA. The mail's syntax is correct, so there is
no need to modify/correct them. If tomorrow a very-new-style will become
standard you wouldn't transform your whole Mailbox into this one, world
you? I see no error in argumenting that it's the *MUA*'s job.

I see your point, that vith procmail it's way faster. But this doesn't
bother me (if the checking is done on demand).


P.S.: Sorry again for the wrong subject line. I proofread the body, but
I forgot to do it on the subject. :-\

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

Press any key to continue or any other key to quit...

Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[Thomas Hurst]

* Roman Neuhauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Procmail:
> + lots of prepackaged antispam filters

SpamAssassin rules all.

> - config files resemble uuencoded assembler

They're quite easy to understand once you grasp them.

Would you prefer an XML format? :)

> - quite resource-hungry (keeps the whole message in memory while
>   processing it)

Not an issue for me, I don't get large messages, and even if I did I
have about 250MB free.. :)

> - reportedly isn't completely safe (can lose your mail)

Maybe if you forget to use a : :)

> Maildrop:
> - not as popular as Procmail (fewer filter packages)
> + square head is not a prerequisite to understand the configuration

As if anybody doesn't write their own ;)

> - quite optimized (larger messages stored in temp files during
>   processing)
> + should be safer than Procmail
> 
> In fact, I found only a *single* spam filter for Maildrop.

http://spamassassin.taint.org/

This used to use Mail::Audit, but various bugs in it have changed that
:)

> Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my
> knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language.

Neither should, this is beyond their scope; if you want a real language,
run it through an external filter.

> This can be a plus, or a minus (YMMV), but imagine being able to write
> filters using a full-featured scripting language! This idea really
> attracts me, and I started prototyping such an MDA in PHP.

Argh, PHP for important system tasks, keep it away from me! ;)

> Using a scripting language has of course a few inherent drawbacks,
> but I don't think the speed decrease would be so horrible to mean
> anything on a single user box (as opposed to a corporate POP 3 server,
> for example). However, I know that I would benefit from the enhanced
> capabilities.

Well, how would you include a real programming language in a filter
specification without making the filter fragile and overcomplex?

Actually, with exceptions, powerful OO and lovely clean syntax, I
suspect you could do some interesting things with Ruby...

require 'autolist'

if list = MailingList.match(Mail)
# (badly) strip [list-name] from subject
Mail.subject.strip!(/\[.*\]/)
Mail.deliver('lists/' + list)
end

Mm :)

> I'm slowly getting the picture of the classes that would make this
> happen, and would like to ask you: is there something that you sorely
> lack in your favorite MDA? What is it?

The ability to queue a bunch of messages and then run large scale
comparisons on them for decent dupe handling.  Only being able to look
at the current message and ones seen earlier makes this very difficult.



> -- FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE 1:33AM up 4 days, 7:57, 11 users, load
> averages: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00

Beat you.

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
Just about the time when you think you can make ends meet
somebody moves the ends!

Re: validating traditional signitures

[Volker Moell]

David T-G wrote:
> 
> *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now
> it hasn't been a concern.

I thought I read about the whole "Problems with PGP mails from Outlook"
more often in the last months.


> Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros?  These
> macros simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but
> usually not spend the time on doing so for all messages.  Macros are
> no longer (in 1.3.x where x=>20 at least) necessary for traditional
> verification.

I meant the whole old-style handling, not this point in special.

The main thing which bothers me: I get very often old-style signed/
encrypted mails. Every time when I open such a mail I have to press
Esc-P per default, which is annoing in my eyes. I would like to have
this to be done automatically like in the new-style. The common answers
about this problem is "write a macro". Because a message-hook fails
(resp. failed the last time I tried it, there was an endless loop), I
have to write lots of macros (for every possible key I can enter this
mail).  It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp
would become a variable ("set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes"), so
that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of
handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible
workarounds for the other 50%).

(The other problems when *writing* old-style PGP mails probably do not
exist anymore. I didn't had the time to test the patches announce here
in the last weeks.)


> All you have to do is hit esc-P and it's all there, AIUI, so either build
> esc-P into your macro, folder-hook an esc-P on all messages when you
> enter,

Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly)
intricately.

Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's
not really good for me.

Concerning macros: There are so many ways you can "enter" a mail that
it's hard to detect them all; and (AFAIK) not all work with macros.

The only good thing I see is to make a message-hook. But (kill me if
it's wrong) it seems not to work with it. *If* it's wrong: Forgive me
and tell me the answer. I asked a month ago, but I found no satisfying
answer.

The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp
variable.


> or use procmail to "adjust" the message at delivery time so that
> it looks like MIME.  There's no need for another setting and for mutt to
> have to parse every message in case it *might* be signed in the body.

Personally I don't like it to modify my mails (e.g. with procmail).  In
the worst case the mails become corrupted and no more readable at all.
Apart from this I see no reason for modifying, the MUA can handle it.


> % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have
> Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a
> comma ;-)

Ok, in *this* case... :-)


> Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two
> different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and
> on-demand verifying (accomplished through various macros).  Can you
> confirm or deny?

Indeed I must confirm you. Sorry!  The problem is clearly the *checking*
not the *verifying* (this is done correctly after the manual checking).


Greets,

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

You think Ödipus had a problem -- Adam was Eve's mother.

Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[Walt Mankowski]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:04:22PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Jan 24, Jeremy Blosser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > On Jan 25, Roman Neuhauser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my
> > > knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language. This can be a
> > > plus, or a minus (YMMV), but imagine being able to write filters using a
> > > full-featured scripting language!
> > 
> > Qmail's .qmail files allow this to be done pretty easily, since you can
> > pipe messages to whatever you want.  All you'd need to do is stick
> > something on the end that can read a message as stdin and deliver it, like
> > the maildir/safecat command.
> > 
> > I have no idea if Postfix/Exim/etc. offer something similar.
> 
> I've been told their .forward will do the same; I wasn't sure before how
> much they allowed.  It's been a while.

Yep, you can use .forward to forward mail to arbitrary programs as
well as other addresses.  Here's how I forward all my incoming mail
through my Mail::Audit script:

$ cat ~/.forward
|/home/walt/bin/audit_mail.pl
$

Walt




msg23780/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: char % as quote

[Thomas Hurst]

* Roman Neuhauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> dunno about "real" csh (csh == tcsh on FreeBSD), but % is the default
> for 0http://www.aagh.net/
-
Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends.
-- H. L. Mencken

Re: resending a msg

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Jeremy Blosser blurted
> FWIW, you could hit '?' to see the keybindings, then '/resend' to search
> for resend, and you would find resend-message bound to e.

Sure, believe it not I did try that, I must have made a typo and not
noticed because I just tried it again and of course it worked. I
couldn't find it when I looked through '?' either though: Odd.

- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UXROHpvrrTa6L5oRAgtsAJ9/8TOvtQ4ArEwLbBZBvsI0db23jACfYQ+R
vtQXvrc6NpbI+qACm4yfc84=
=sQye
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: resending a msg

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 25, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find
> it? How is that done?

FWIW, you could hit '?' to see the keybindings, then '/resend' to search
for resend, and you would find resend-message bound to e.



msg23777/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: char % as quote

[Roman Neuhauser]

> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:24:06 +0100
> From: Martin Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mutt Users' List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: char % as quote
> 
> On Fri Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> > ...I dunno what shell you guys are using, but
> > mine uses $ for user and # for root... '%' doesn't enter into it.
> 
> IIRC, '>' is the default for tcsh (and (again, IIRC) '%' is the default
> for csh).

dunno about "real" csh (csh == tcsh on FreeBSD), but % is the
default for 0

Re: char % as quote

[Martin Karlsson]

On Fri Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> ...I dunno what shell you guys are using, but
> mine uses $ for user and # for root... '%' doesn't enter into it.

IIRC, '>' is the default for tcsh (and (again, IIRC) '%' is the default
for csh).

-- 
Martin Karlsson 

Re: resending a msg

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


* and then Ben Logan blurted
> The default keybinding is e.  At least that's what it is on my
> system, and I don't think I re-bound it.

Yep, thanks Ben.
- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UU5EHpvrrTa6L5oRArrkAKCog8GAZ3r+6p52l8DlnIcdlZQeyACgkePd
ez4iG1ckeKVqQu1g19gPUrM=
=ZkPc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: resending a msg

[Ben Logan]

The default keybinding is e.  At least that's what it is on my
system, and I don't think I re-bound it.

Regards,
Ben

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:50:39AM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi everyone,
> and a very merry Friday to you all.
> 
> I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find
> it? How is that done?

-- 
Ben Logan: ben at wblogan dot net
OpenPGP Key KeyID: A1ADD1F0

Re: char % as quote

[Dave Pearson]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:44:59AM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> Alas! David T-G spake thus:
> > Funny, but my prompt really used to be > back in my early days.
> 
> Of course, good old Wintendo has always used the '>' character at the end
> of the DOS prompt... [SNIP]

Sort of. The default prompt of the default shell on WinDOS has always used
the ">" character. Personally I haven't used the default shell of WinDOS
since about 1991 and the last character of the prompt hasn't been ">" for
that length of time.

-- 
Dave Pearson:  | mutt.octet.filter - autoview octet-streams
http://www.davep.org/  | mutt.vcard.filter - autoview simple vcards
Mutt:  | muttrc2html   - muttrc -> HTML utility
http://www.davep.org/mutt/ | muttrc.sl - Jed muttrc mode

resending a msg

[Nick Wilson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone,
and a very merry Friday to you all.

I'm sure I've seen a key binding for resending a message but can't find
it? How is that done?

For now I've just bounced the message which I guess should send it again
but I'd like to know how this is normally done.

Much thanks

- -- 

Nick Wilson

Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8UTh/HpvrrTa6L5oRAs0aAJ0aeO0gekSIRi8xEdc7CQsqHhh7bQCeNdGV
4aSIz+uGqVl3Xn2FuwR+0ZU=
=jheB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[Prahlad Vaidyanathan]

Hi,

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 Roman Neuhauser spewed into the ether:
[-- snip --]
> I'm slowly getting the picture of the classes that would make this
> happen, and would like to ask you: is there something that you sorely
> lack in your favorite MDA? What is it?

Currently, I use procmail ( I've never used maildrop ), and I wish it's
syntax were a bit more like perl's. I find it's current regexp handling
kinda cumbersome, and have reverted to piping my mails into perl scripts
more than once in the past.

Anyway, do post some results, setup a mailing list if you can, and you
can count me in !

pv.
-- 
Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

There is more to life than increasing its speed.
-- Mahatma Gandhi



msg23770/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: char % as quote

[Prahlad Vaidyanathan]

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 Anh Lai spewed into the ether:
> How do I make mutt color lines starting with % as a quote just like >
> 
> apparently David only uses this, and i would like to learn how to add %
> as a quote indicator.

A word of advice - Please don't change it. Though a *lot* of people do
it, it is frowned upon in many circles.

pv.
-- 
Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You've been Berkeley'ed!



msg23769/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: prevent signature on reply

[Prahlad Vaidyanathan]

Hi,

On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 Anh Lai spewed into the ether:
> how do i keep adding my signature when replying?  I would like to add it only
> when composing a new messgae.  Having my signature collect on the bottom gets
> annoying sometimes.

Maybe by rebinding the 'r'eply key. Like so (untested) :

macro pager r "unset signature.sh\n"
macro pager m "set signature='~/.mutt/signature'\n"

pv.
-- 
Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich."
-- Looney Tunes, Ali Baba Bunny (1957, Chuck Jones)



msg23768/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: message filtering in mutt

[Prahlad Vaidyanathan]

Hi,

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 Mike Schiraldi spewed into the ether:
> I've written patch which brings message filtering to mutt. Once applied, you
> can press F from within mutt to begin the process of setting up mail
> filters.
> 
> The patch is short, so i've attached in inline:

ROTFL !!

That was good :-)

pv.
-- 
Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"The wages of sin are death; but after they're done taking out taxes,
it's just a tired feeling:"



msg23767/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: macros help

[Benjamin Smith]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote:
> I'd like to do the same thing if I decide to delete a thread. I've tried
> the following...
> 
> macro pager ^d 
> 
> to no avail. Anyone spot what I'm doing wrong?

I tried the above and instead of giving me a keybinding to a control
sequence, it gave me a literal binding to the caret.

The following should be a working macro:

macro pager \cd 

This is infact contrary to the documented behaviour in the manual which
says that a caret not \c indicates the control key. Is this a
documentation bug?

-- 
Benjamin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]>



msg23766/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[OT] Re: available MDA's: are you satisfied?

[David Clarke]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> | Now, what bugs me about both of these programs: to the best of my
> | knowledge, neither offers you a real programming language.
> 
> Well, they do both offer a programming language. Oh, you mean "not with the
> bells and whistles I want".  True, neither will do loops AFAIK...
> 

Well maildrop can do loops.  Its got while loops and foreach ones.

David.

-- 
All generalizations are false, including this one. -- Mark Twain
-
David Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | David Clarke 
Key Fingerprint :  869B 53DD 5E80 E1F0 93F6  9871 0508 0296 5957 F723

Don't mention MUAS to fight html email

[Marco]

> > > 2.  I got tired of explaining text-only MUAs to them only to
> > > receive comments like, "I guess Unix isn't very good if it
> > > can't even display different colors and fonts like my PC can.
..
> > .What do you say to comments like that? There's
> > no point, they'll never get it :(

As already said, you tell them that they are looking at the wrong problem (and an 
unexistent one, as any kmail screehshot will show).
Text MUAs and Operating system have nothing to do with this.

You must answer that displaying fonts and colors in EMAIL (not word
processing, that's a different topic) is BAD even on windows, and
the worst form of bad manners, because it slows downs unnecessarily
ALL internet traffic, AND forces the receiver to waste HIS money and
time (even on windows!) to look at somebody else's idea of nice
formatting.

You must answer that it's like mailing a letter inside a three pounds
box ... at the expense of the receiver.

Never talk about text muas and operating systems when fighting HTML
mail, point out that it's bad EVEN for outlook/windows users. They
don't get it, and most times, actually, it's not their fault.

Marco

Re: Why sign posts on mailinglists?

[Preben Randhol]

"Derek D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/01/2002 (09:25) :
> 
> Sure, but if you actually cared, you could get my key and try to
> verify it.  Presumably, if you cared, you'd already have it, since my
> key ID is in my sig, and since you can configure gpg/mutt to get keys
> from a keyserver automatically.  If you had my key, it wouldn't
> verify.

No I don't care to have a lot of pgp keys from strangers. But let's stop
this discussion now. There is no point in debating this again.

Preben
-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'   http://www.amnesty.org/