Re: /var/spool/mail/.... is not a mailbox
On Mon 15 Apr 2002 11:45:06 NZST +1200, skidley wrote: When I started mutt after a new install I get /var/spool/mail/myusername is not a mailbox. I've never seen such a thing. So I ran fetchmail and it created /var/spool/mail/user and downloaded my pop messages and still when I run mutt I get /var/spool/mail... is not a mailbox. why out of the blue would mutt do I just had that too. Remove the blank line from the top of the file if there is one and try again. I am surprised that mutt can't handle this triviality. Also, when fetchmail delivers to localhost:25 (i.e. your mail server) the From lines are correctly there (generated by your local MTA). However, when you make fetchmail deliver directly to procmail, fetchmail does not generate a From line at all, and neither does procmail - big barf results. In that case, use fetchmail - formail | procmail. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann, list0570 at paradise dot net dot nz http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem
Snip out any two consecutive messages from the file and attach them to a reply to the list. I'm sure someone can come up with a quick hack that will [re?]build ^From_ lines for you. Yes, that hack is very simple: man formail man procmail Splitting up a single file which contains concatenated emails with no From_ line at all could be more of a problem. Try some formail options, if none help, use a short script (or your editor) and replace each From: with a From\nFrom: , then run formail. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann, list0570 at paradise dot net dot nz http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Is pgp_strict_enc working
Hi! I'm having problems with pgp_strict_enc. I want mutt to not encode message to quoted-printable before pgp sign, so I set pgp_strict_enc to no in my .muttrc, but mutt still encode it before sign. What's wrong? Me or mutt? (Of course! Mutt can't be wrong, I know! :-) Thank Patrik. msg27182/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /var/spool/mail/.... is not a mailbox
* Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [04-15-02 05:45]: On Mon 15 Apr 2002 11:45:06 NZST +1200, skidley wrote: When I started mutt after a new install I get /var/spool/mail/myusername is not a mailbox. I've never seen such a thing. So I ran fetchmail and it created /var/spool/mail/user and downloaded my pop messages and still when I run mutt I get /var/spool/mail... is not a mailbox. why out of the blue would mutt do I just had that too. Remove the blank line from the top of the file if there is one and try again. I am surprised that mutt can't handle this triviality. Also, when fetchmail delivers to localhost:25 (i.e. your mail server) the From lines are correctly there (generated by your local MTA). However, when you make fetchmail deliver directly to procmail, fetchmail does not generate a From line at all, and neither does procmail - big barf results. In that case, use fetchmail - formail | procmail. I believe that this is misleading/incorrect information. I have fetchmail deliver directly to procmail: # Configuration created Thu Jun 7 23:38:18 2001 by fetchmailconf set logfile /home/pat/.procmail/fetchmail.log set postmaster pat set bouncemail set spambounce set properties v set daemon 150 poll pop.x.com via pop.x.com with proto POP3 timeout 600 user 'pat' there with password 'xxxis 'pat' here options fetchall stripcr mda '/usr/bin/procmail -d %T' #user 'somebodyelse' there with password '' is 'lefthand' here options fetchall stripcr # mda '/usr/bin/procmail -d %T' AND have never had a problem with the 'From ' line/header. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 Registered at: http://counter.li.org
Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem
Volker -- ...and then Volker Kuhlmann said... % % Snip out any two consecutive messages from the file and attach them to a % reply to the list. I'm sure someone can come up with a quick hack that % will [re?]build ^From_ lines for you. % % Yes, that hack is very simple: % % man formail % man procmail Heh. It's more than just that, I'm afraid. If it isn't, then cough up exact grammar so I can learn some magic, too. % % Splitting up a single file which contains concatenated emails with no % From_ line at all could be more of a problem. Try some formail options, Exactly. Go back to the beginning of the thread and see how he got this far. It ain't pretty. % if none help, use a short script (or your editor) and replace each % From: with a From\nFrom: , then run formail. He's already done some mangling in vim, leaving himself with ^From_ lines that quite possibly are less useful than none at all, but at least they can be used as placeholders for something that should really go there. % % Volker % % -- % Volker Kuhlmann, list0570 at paradise dot net dot nz % http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me. 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! msg27184/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote: % * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]: % Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your % $pgp_verify_command look like? % gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f % % Except '--quiet' the same here. I don't have --quiet and have --output but am otherwise the same, too. % % As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. % % David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something % to do with it? I don't know. I was just thinking of escaped ^From_ lines, which have caused bad signatures on this list before. I didn't mean to throw out a red herring :-) 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! msg27185/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Thorsten, et al -- ...and then Thorsten Haude said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 22:46]: % * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote: % * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]: % Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your % $pgp_verify_command look like? % gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f % Except '--quiet' the same here. % I doubt that this is the reason. % % As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. % David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something % to do with it? I don't know. % I couldn't find anything. Remember also that I have only problems with % David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck. Heh :-) I'm glad to see that others have problems elsewhere now, too! I've done some digging and still don't see the problem, though the leading dots issue is interesting. For instance, the reply I just sent to Rocco went out just fine and I have a copy in my =mutt-users fcc file. When I read that message, it says good signature but could not be verified. Digging into the message in an editor, I see leading dots properly escaped. Using mutt to save the body and signature separately and then running $pgp_verify_command by hand on the pieces gives me, amazingly enough, a bad signature. I get the same verification error when I run the stock mutt-1.3.28. Just what does the verification do, anyway? What is mutt expecting from gpg, and what are the steps that gpg is taking? I always thought that it was checking the signature of the message to make sure the message hadn't been modified, but good signature with could not be verified seems to contradict that... HTH TIA 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! msg27186/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * David T-G [04/15/02 14:06:08 CEST] wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote: % gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f % % Except '--quiet' the same here. I don't have --quiet and have --output but am otherwise the same, too. --output and -o are equal. Cheers, Rocco. msg27187/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is pgp_strict_enc working
Hi, * Patrik Modesto [04/15/02 13:46:31 CEST] wrote: I'm having problems with pgp_strict_enc. I want mutt to not encode message to quoted-printable before pgp sign, so I set pgp_strict_enc to no in my .muttrc, but mutt still encode it before sign. What's wrong? Me or mutt? (Of course! Mutt can't be wrong, I know! :-) Why would someone want this? QP is chosen to ensure that the body of a messages is not touched and can be safely transported and delivered. Signing unencoded mail may cause some MTA on the path to do encoding so that you can't verify anything. Cheers, Rocco. msg27188/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: S/MIME
That doesn't sound as if you were a friend of these. Since I saw a few using S/MIME in this list, what might have been their reason? Is S/MIME better established with non-free software? We had a discussion in February about this. Check out Jeremy's excellent posts: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101258931506891w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101260020607114w=2 and, in the interest of equal time, Will's counterpoint: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101260114609607w=2 Some excerpts from Jeremy's messages: S/MIME does not use keyservers like OpenPGP does. It also does not have a web of trust concept, instead relying on central CAs. They consider this an advantage, since it means you can always verify a message regardless of your current network connection status, etc... all that you need to verify the message is containted in the message itself and your local list of trusted CA certs. [...] The difficulty of PGP is what's kept it from being publically accepted as a normal thing to do [...] People need to accept encryption the way they accept envelopes on snail mail. They never would have globally accepted these if you couldn't use one unless you knew how to make your own adhesive, ink, and stamps. I saw Phil Zimmerman speak a few months ago at ALS in Oakland, and he understands this more than anyone. He expressed a good bit of dismay at how clique-ish PGP usage is, and how much it has missed the mark of being a way to give encryption to the masses and make it normal. He endured all manner of government harassment to defend people's right to use this stuff, and yet years later, hardly anyone is taking advantage of it. It was really interesting hearing him speak. It's too bad he had to stop due to people in the audience arguing that there was no value at all in people using PGP unless they all used it completely securely (the main antagonist noted that he keeps his private keys on a CD and never has that near his computer unless it's completely disconnected from the network), which prompted a bunch more people to complain that there was too much talking and not enough key signing going on. So my summary point is that the mailers designed for the masses are choosing S/MIME instead of PGP because PGP's trust model is too complicated for, say, my mother to understand. Look in the PGP manual under, for example, --edit-key. All kinds of complicated trust issues, with phrases like, the signature is marked as non-exportable, this updates the trust-db, add a subkey to this key, marginally trusted fully trusted, ultimately trusted ... I have no idea what most of that means, and no amount of UI design is going to help that. Will Outlook pop up a message which asks Joe AOL User, Do you marginally trust this, or ultimately trust it? Joe doesn't understand the security issues. With S/MIME, the only question is, Do you trust [company] to certify that people are who they say they are? Assuming Joe does, everything else is completely automatic. -- Mike Schiraldi VeriSign Applied Research msg27189/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Mutt newbie and iSpell.
Hello, I am new to the list, to Mutt and to Linux. I have been studying the manual, as well as .muttrc files and am close to the point where I feel I actually can begin to use Mutt on a daily basis ;-) However, I do have a problem. I am trying to implement the following macros, but when I invoke them in Mutt, I get a rapidly blinking cursor and what appears to be a freeze of all Mutt functions: macro compose i :set ispell=newsbody-ispell\n ispell-english macro compose I :set ispell=newsbody-ispell-dansk\n ispell-dansk I am running SuSE 7.3 Pro and have installed the latest version of spellutils (0.7). There is nothing remarkable about my system, except for the Danish language support. I hope someone can help. BTW, I have checked the archive. The macros were snipped from Stefan Zehl's .muttrc file at: http://sec.42.org/mutt/.mutt/muttrc-1.3.27i.html Cheers, Brian -- Is Windows the best desktop system because it is used by a majority of computer users, or is it simply the desktop system installed on a majority of computers? Choose freedom. Choose Linux.
Re: S/MIME
Hi, * Mike Schiraldi [04/15/02 15:55:22 CEST] wrote: [ interesting points ] Good points, thanks for mentioning. But in my opinion current problems/difficulties with PGP only affect people currently using it. So the concept of a web of trust and the resulting problems only motivate people currently using it to switch to S/MIME. Another point why PGP and encryption/signing is not very widely used is that there are lots people using the internet who are not technically interested in it. If they knew more details they maybe were interested in PGP or S/MIME. S/MIME won't become the no. 1 standard unless people see a need to use digital signatures. There're good reasons, I know, but someone has to tell them besides all the colorfull tv commercials promising ultimate security out-of-the-box. There are lots of servers still running telnet daemons and allowing users to log into a ftp machine by sending the passwort as plaintext. And not only that, some users/administrators don't see any reason why to switch to ssh. And on the other hand there're people complaining about PGPs web of trust and try to motivate others to use S/MIME instead. IMO there's a long way to go. Furthermore I personally prefer the pgp concept of trust than just to generally trust an authority. I don't know in detail how they work and thus don't want to trust them blindly that they're doing their job the way I would. I want to have the power to decide which key I trust and which not on my own. Cheers, Rocco. msg27192/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
fork() ?
Hello guys! Please cc-me in answering, I am not subscribed! I am wondering why mutt has to be locked while G-taking pop mails. I think I still could work/send new mails while mutt does this work. I also think that it would be senseful, if I get 500 messages, I could start to answer the first while recieving the last 400. So my question, why don't we easily fork() this process ? Nico -- Nico Schottelius Please send your messages pgp-signed or pgp-encrypted. If you don't know what pgp is visit www.gnupg.org. (public pgp key: ftp.schottelius.org/pub/familiy/nico/pgp-key) msg27193/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fork() ?
Nico Schottelius wrote: I am wondering why mutt has to be locked while G-taking pop mails. I think I still could work/send new mails while mutt does this work. I also think that it would be senseful, if I get 500 messages, I could start to answer the first while recieving the last 400. So my question, why don't we easily fork() this process ? You probably want to install fetchmail instead of using Mutt's built in POP3 support. This will give you more flexibility, and allow you to download mail in the background.
Re: Mutt newbie and iSpell.
Hi, * Brian Durant [04/15/02 17:04:53 CEST] wrote: I am new to the list, to Mutt and to Linux. Welcome. ;-) [...] but when I invoke them in Mutt, I get a rapidly blinking cursor and what appears to be a freeze of all Mutt functions: macro compose i :set ispell=newsbody-ispell\n ispell-english macro compose I :set ispell=newsbody-ispell-dansk\n ispell-dansk Hmm, try replacing \n by enter: macro compose i :set ispell=...enter ... Does work here. Cheers, Rocco. msg27195/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fork() ?
begin Nico Schottelius quotation: I am wondering why mutt has to be locked while G-taking pop mails. I think I still could work/send new mails while mutt does this work. I also think that it would be senseful, if I get 500 messages, I could start to answer the first while recieving the last 400. So my question, why don't we easily fork() this process ? fetchmail is what you want for that. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27196/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /var/spool/mail/.... is not a mailbox
Hi, * Volker Kuhlmann [04/15/02 08:28:44 CEST] wrote: However, when you make fetchmail deliver directly to procmail, fetchmail does not generate a From line at all, and neither does procmail - big barf results. In that case, use fetchmail - formail | procmail. ,[ ~/.procmailrc ]- | | # Regenerate From lines to make sure they are valid | :0 fhw | | formail -I From -a From | `- Cheers, Rocco. msg27197/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is pgp_strict_enc working
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: Hi, * Patrik Modesto [04/15/02 13:46:31 CEST] wrote: I'm having problems with pgp_strict_enc. I want mutt to not encode message to quoted-printable before pgp sign, so I set pgp_strict_enc to no in my .muttrc, but mutt still encode it before sign. What's wrong? Me or mutt? (Of course! Mutt can't be wrong, I know! :-) Why would someone want this? QP is chosen to ensure that the body of a messages is not touched and can be safely transported and delivered. Signing unencoded mail may cause some MTA on the path to do encoding so that you can't verify anything. Because my emails read users of MUA, that dont understand that =50=65 messages. Anyway. Is the pgp_strict_enc setting working? Not for me. Patrik msg27198/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: S/MIME
Hi, * Mike Schiraldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 15:55]: That doesn't sound as if you were a friend of these. Since I saw a few using S/MIME in this list, what might have been their reason? Is S/MIME better established with non-free software? We had a discussion in February about this. Check out Jeremy's excellent posts: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101258931506891w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101260020607114w=2 and, in the interest of equal time, Will's counterpoint: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=101260114609607w=2 Thanks, that was interesting! Thorsten -- The history of Liberty is a history of the limitation of government power. - Woodrow Wilson msg27199/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 02:15]: Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what path it's taking to get to you, perhaps there's a broken MTA involved. Two mails from David, I cannot verify the first, I can verify the second. I rot13'ed the leading Froms, just to be sure. - - - Schnipp - - - Sebz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 14 17:00:27 2002 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eumel.yoo.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id 00DD81262F for yooden@localhost; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:58:17 +0200 Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [194.70.126.10] (helo=ns.gbnet.net) by mxng01.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16wlSI-0007Sx-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:58:14 +0200 Received: (qmail 6189 invoked by uid 610); 14 Apr 2002 14:55:48 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6179 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 14:55:43 - Received: from unknown (HELO zero.sector13.org) (199.105.121.241) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 14:55:43 - Received: (qmail 29149 invoked by uid 2003); 14 Apr 2002 14:54:58 - Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:54:58 -0500 From: David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mutt Users' List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] +20020413110926.A2737@Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=TD8GDToEDw0WLGOL Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 62 - - - Schnapp - - - - - - Schnipp - - - Sebz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 11 17:55:11 2002 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eumel.yoo.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id E06F41262C for yooden@localhost; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:49:18 +0200 Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.141] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [194.70.126.10] (helo=ns.gbnet.net) by mxng03.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16vgdn-00083b-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:37:39 +0200 Received: (qmail 17735 invoked by uid 610); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:54 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17712 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Received: from unknown (HELO zero.sector13.org) (199.105.121.241) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Received: (qmail 22449 invoked by uid 2003); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:35:46 -0500 From: David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mutt Users' List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jun Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Don't reply to me does not work? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=oOINc+Z9LTvKzseX Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Status: RO Content-Length: 1235 Lines: 63 - - - Schnapp - - - Thorsten -- Every person shall have the right freely to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. - Grundgesetz, Article 5, Sec. 1 msg27200/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 20:19]: I cannot verify the first And I cannot verify this one. Thorsten -- Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. - Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs. 1 msg27201/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Thorsten Haude wrote: * Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 20:19]: I cannot verify the first And I cannot verify this one. perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list? -- Will Yardley input: william @ hq . newdream . net .
Re: PGP signature verification
Hello Rocco, On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, that's one of mine and guess what... It verifies okay here. Yes, okay here too now I've corrected effect of my broken deliver. And It should be also verified by anybody else without my problem. not removing the dot added in this case by SMTP. But GPG signes the message body. So, if my postfix would remove the leading dots the content would be changed, right? Well no. SMTP works like that. Each sender prepends a dot to lines beginning by a dot, each receiver removes it. That's true for POP3 and IMAP too: the server sends adding dots, fetchmail (or witchever client) receives and removes them. It's designed like this to be transparent, and in fact it is, in most cases... unless someone uses bad old software, like me. :-( That's done at the transfer protocol level, so PGP or Mutt are not involved, nor should be impacted, at least when all works well. Even Mutt's feature to encode first dot when quoted-unreadabling is just to be on the safe side: it should theorically not be necessary for receiving unmodified mails, in a perfect world. All this dot thing is because these protocols use a dot single on it's line to mark end of text. So a message would have to be encoded correctly before handing it over to an SMTP delivery process and should be deliverable without any modifications. BTW you seem to be nearly the only one here to use PGP/MIME sigs, and to *not* use QP encoding: why? I'll take some time tomorrow to try that with all messages which don't verify correctly. Not necessary: I've given the only 4 touched ID's. If I follow correctly, the unverifiable you see are not the same ones... But what is really weird that mails which cannot be verified differ from person to person. This shows there is more than one only problem... :-( Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Thorsten Haude quotation: Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) That's a really old fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including problems with parsing usernames with spaces in them. Try upgrading it, and see if the problem persists. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27204/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
begin Will Yardley quotation: And I cannot verify this one. perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list? Is this list no longer for solving Mutt-related problems? Or is it just that you think no one else will possibly ever have this problem, and only the people he'd communicate with off-list could possibly solve it? -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27205/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 22:01]: begin Thorsten Haude quotation: Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) That's a really old fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including problems with parsing usernames with spaces in them. Try upgrading it, and see if the problem persists. Done. Thanks so far. Thorsten -- The fact that windows is one of the most popular ways to operate a computer means that evolution has made a general fuckup and our race is doomed. msg27206/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problems (bugs?) I found with mutt
Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: I found these problems for which I know *no* 100% workaround: - I'm unable to browse Maildirs reliably. They can contain both messages and subfolders but when I enter a maildir the message index is displayed automatically This is perfect behaviour. A Maildir should not have subdirs other then cur, new, tmp. If you need subdirs, use normal directories. ~/Mail (dir) | `-lists (dir) | | | `-mutt-users (Maildir) | | `-cur | | `-new | | `-tmp | | | `-somelist (mbox) | | | `-yet_another_list (Maildir) | `cur | `new | `tmp | `-what_the_heck [...] (should be handled the same way IMAP browsing is described in documentation). - subfolders in Maildirs arent displayed in browser - start with dot (set mask to show .subforder and ignore new|cur|tmp) - suggest maildir_mask IMAP folder may have subdirs. Maildirs not. set folder=imaps://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/mail # During previous experiments I discovered that I'm able to set browser # root using $folder exactly twice: first I set it to ~/Mail as a # default and then to an imap server using folder-hook. After that # browser starts on the imap server I used first. #set folder=~/Mail If you use hooks to toggle variables make sure you have a default hook to reset the values. folder-hook . set folder=~/Mail account-hook imap-account \ set folder=imaps://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/mail HTH, Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
tmp modified. Update encoding?
I recently changed configs - I'm now using fetchmail/procmail/mutt, and when I compose a message in mutt, I get this message when I try to send it: ~/.mutt/tmp/mutt-merrill-1234-0 [#1] modified. Update encoding? ([y]/n): Am I doing something wrong, or have a forgotten something in the config of mutt? TIA. -- Hardy Merrill Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP signature verification
Hi, * Alain Bench [04/15/02 21:31:06 CEST] wrote: On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: So a message would have to be encoded correctly before handing it over to an SMTP delivery process and should be deliverable without any modifications. BTW you seem to be nearly the only one here to use PGP/MIME sigs, and to *not* use QP encoding: why? Well some are encoded QP. I know some basics about encryption, so I wonder why I would want to change that? I let mutt decide which character encoding to use. Cheers, Rocco. msg27209/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is pgp_strict_enc working
Hi, * Patrik Modesto [04/15/02 20:28:12 CEST] wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:40:03PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: * Patrik Modesto [04/15/02 13:46:31 CEST] wrote: I'm having problems with pgp_strict_enc. I want mutt to not encode message to quoted-printable before pgp sign, so I set pgp_strict_enc to no in my .muttrc, but mutt still encode it before sign. What's wrong? Me or mutt? (Of course! Mutt can't be wrong, I know! :-) Why would someone want this? QP is chosen to ensure that the body of a messages is not touched and can be safely transported and delivered. Signing unencoded mail may cause some MTA on the path to do encoding so that you can't verify anything. Because my emails read users of MUA, that dont understand that =50=65 messages. In which character set do you send non-signed mail? Maybe your $send_charset overides it? Anyway. Is the pgp_strict_enc setting working? Not for me. I just noticed that it does not always work for me. Cheers, Rocco. msg27210/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
IMAP to Exchange
Is it possible to read Mailinglist of public folders on a Exchange Server with Mutt I manged to configure my mutt to read my mails from the exchange server, but unfortunatly i cannot Browse lower than one level into the public folders. I am running: Debian Linux woddy kernel 2.4.7 with imaptool 0.9-4 Everything else is working perfectly writing mails, browsing subfolders of my Inbox etc. But when i start browsing the public folder of exchange (win2000 Server, Exchange 2000 SP2) I get timeouts, eg. No response. The interessting thing is that i can browse some folder (with no subfolders insinde) and read the mail in these folders. All folders i have Problems with have subdirectories. In my pager they have IMAP + notation. All with the + down´t work. Any ideas ?
Re: Problems (bugs?) I found with mutt
Michael Tatge wrote: Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: I found these problems for which I know *no* 100% workaround: - I'm unable to browse Maildirs reliably. They can contain both messages and subfolders but when I enter a maildir the message index is displayed automatically This is perfect behaviour. A Maildir should not have subdirs other then cur, new, tmp. If you need subdirs, use normal directories. [...] (should be handled the same way IMAP browsing is described in documentation). - subfolders in Maildirs arent displayed in browser - start with dot (set mask to show .subforder and ignore new|cur|tmp) - suggest maildir_mask IMAP folder may have subdirs. Maildirs not. perhaps the OP is confusing courier's 'maildir++' documentation with Maildir itself. courier imapd does actually allow subfolders, and this is the default. folders start with a '.' by default. you can put: set mask=^\\. to show only folders starting with a leading dot. personally, i've found that the better way to use both courier IMAP and local Maildir folders is either to put your actual mail folders in ~/Mail/ and then create symlinks from ~/Mail/foo/ to ~/Maildir/.foo/, or to do the opposite and link ~/Maildir/.foo/ to ~/Mail/foo/. courier's strange way of doing things makes sense when the only access to the system is via IMAP, but it's a pain to use with local folders. -- Will Yardley input: william @ hq . newdream . net .
