Re: Strange multi-color quoting behavior
* On Wed, 15 May 2002, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Alas! John Iverson spake thus: why do the following lines show up in different colors? Well, first of all, the colors don't match what you said (at least for me). Even with the same color settings (3 levels, which repeat) and same (default) $quote_regexp? But I believe that coloring them differently is correct behavior. Since the quote character is different, it's a different quote. It's not part of the same quote. Thus mut uses a different color on it. I wondered if it was intentional behavior. It does make sense in a way, I guess. Just wondering if it's the same for everyone, or if someone has a definitive answer, since this particular behavior is not mentioned in the manual AFAICT. -- John
URGENT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Bonjour, j'ai installé mutt sur sco openserver 5 version 1.2.5.1 et j'aimerais l'avoir en francais que dois-je faire ? merci I have install mutt 1.2.5.1 on sco openserver 5 i would like to have it in french, what have i to do ? thanks Marie
Re: Strange multi-color quoting behavior
On Wed 15-May-2002 at 07:19:05 -0700, John Iverson wrote: | This is in quoted1 color : This is in quoted2 color } This is in quoted color # This is in quoted1 color Did anyone using a similar $quote_regexp see strange coloring on my original post? (I am seeing it on the above re-quoted lines as well, so it's not just the first quote character that affects it.) I've always seen ' ' and '# ' quotes coloured differently - I thought it was a feature. -- Bruno
Re: Threading Lyris (removing [list] prefix from Subject)
Mike -- ...and then Michael P. Soulier said... % % On 14/05/02 Christopher Swingley did speaketh: % % I hate Lyris. Lyris is so nonstandard that one would think it was a ... % % Me too. They set up Lyris in-house here, and I've ignored the project and % put up my own GNU Mailman server instead. Everyone seems to like Mailman more, % and now I'm pissing off the Lyris people. Heee... Good for you! Since you're doing and probably want to do it right, did you configure mailman to not put the footer on the message body but instead play in the headers where it belongs? :-) % % Mike % % -- % Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08 % ...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount % of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix 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! msg28133/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Kanagesh -- I don't know much about sendmail configuration any more (yay!) but it looks like you're trying to relay through a mail server that doesn't allow relaying (the 553 messages). That makes sense; most mail servers shouldn't relay. If this is your ISP's mail hub and you're supposed to be able to send out through it, then call your tech support and ask what's up. If it isn't their customer relay hub but that's what you intended, simply ask what relay server you should use. If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? 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! msg28134/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg keyrings and mutt getting keys
Rob -- ...and then Feztaa said... % % Alas! David T-G spake thus: % What I need to know now is how mutt calls gpg so that it gets a key; % % It's obvious you know a lot more about GPG than I do (I didn't even know Well, obvious or not, that's still subject to debate :-) % there was a new version until reading this), but try writing a bash % script that contains this: % % #!/bin/bash % echo $* ~/args % cat ~/stdin % % Then replace your gpg binary with that command. Then run mutt. Now check % your home dir, and you'll see the two files, and you'll know how mutt % calls gpg ;) Well, yes, I know how gpg gets executed; that isn't the question. What I want to know are the mutt semantics of deciding how to call gpg for sig verification and/or key downloading. In short, I want verification to look at all of my rings but I want downloading to drop into the right ring. It may be that I just have to do ring reordering every time I call gpg but maybe not -- and I don't yet know whether it's expensive or desirable to do that, either. % % -- % Rob 'Feztaa' Park % http://members.shaw.ca/feztaa/ % -- % Beauty may be skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone. % -- Redd Foxx Thanks 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! msg28135/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MailFlags
Markus -- ...and then Markus Boelter said... % % Hi! Hello! % % On my maschine I have the following mutt-procmail-configuration: % % Every eMail is delivered to /var/spool/mail/makrus. I use mutt to read % this mbox-mailfolder. So every Mailinglist, private eMail, is in % that inbox. Now I can see all my eMails only by looking into one folder. % % After reading all these eMails I start a macro piping this folder % through procmail to sort the mails in the right folders. (Folder for % every mailing-list, special persons, ...) % Everything works fine for me. Very interesting. How do you choose what messages to send to procmail? Do you always make sure everything is read before calling your macro, or are you already limiting to only read messages so that 'N'ew messages stay in the spool? % % Now my wish: % I want to mark eMails with the important-flag in % /var/spool/mail/lordbyte. How does mutt set this flag in my mbox? I want As you've seen, it's done with an 'F' char in the X-Status: header field. % to modify my procmail ruleset the way emails marked as inportant % still stay in my newmail-folder. That's a procmail question; take it somewhere else :-) % What a regex can I use in procmail to match every mail but not the % important? Instead of having procmail sometimes write back to the spool and otherwise write to another folder, why not just not send the flagged messages (see pattern ~F in the manual; that's what people generally use to indicate important, and you can use procmail at arrival time to detect any Priority: or Importance: headers and write your X-Status: F accordingly) to procmail in your macro? You didn't tell us about how it's constructed, but something like T!~F to tag messages that are not flagged followed by ;|procmail to tag-prefix pipe them all through procmail should do the trick. I presume you then ;d to delete them all, having copied them off to other folders. % % I know - not a everyday-question - but anyway thanks for help! HTH HAND % % Markus % -- % please don't send me any html-messages! % pgp-fingerprint: 0FFC 3A33 8B54 DDB9 0F3D BFD5 CFB1 6038 FB0E 1D5B % pgp-public-key: http://www.mitternachtsstun.de/gpg-key.markus.txt :-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! msg28136/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which run open relays so that there's much more spam going through those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you use a relay, finally. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: % If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; % that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box % with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? % % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up % lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people Understood. % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his tech support and find out why he can't, no? If I've lost my clue, I welcome directions back to it :-) % run open relays so that there's much more spam going through % those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. Right. % % Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail % directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you % use a relay, finally. Sure, and that's part of what you're paying for with your dialup line (or any other ISP). But, by the very nature of your being a dialup customer (that is, on their IP network), you should be able to use their relay, where the output I saw sure looked like it was from a server not in the business of customer relaying. % % Cheers, Rocco. 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! msg28138/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Strange multi-color quoting behavior
John -- ...and then John Iverson said... % % With different colors set for different quote levels: % % color quoted blue default % color quoted1 magenta default % color quoted2 red default You should probably continue to quoted5 or quoted6 to fill out your test, because ... % % and using the default $quote_regexp and Mutt's built-in pager, % why do the following lines show up in different colors? % % This is in quoted color % | This is in quoted1 color % : This is in quoted2 color % } This is in quoted color % # This is in quoted1 color % This is in quoted color again ... this appears to be looping except for the rematch on the last '' line. % % Shouldn't they all use the quoted (first level) color, since % they are all first-level quotes? While they may be, it doesn't really make sense for there to be two first-level quotes with different delimiters, even if you might split them up for vparsing. A more practical example might be one reply to two originals, perhaps like Quoting John: % he said this % he did?? % and then that % no! Quoting Bill: % # that was messier % # and I wouldn't want it % yeah, you said it or so. Now you would see the outer quotes (%) in color 1 and you might expect to see the inner quotes ( and #) both in color 2 but mutt would (correctly, IMHO) identify them as separate (after all, one is John and the other Bill) and color them as 2 and 3, respectively. % % It seems when the _leading_ quote prefix changes, the color % sequence is not reset, but continues where it left off, and going Right. % back to the first leading quote prefix ( above), resets it % again. (Vim, for example, seems to display this correctly, % although it uses different quote prefixes by default.) I'm interested in your definition of correct, perhaps clarified through detailed description of an example. My definition of correct matches mutt's apparent performance. % % -- % John 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! msg28139/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: imap mailboxes and new mail
I just tried mutt-1.3.25i and I get the same results. Could it be a compile flag I'm using or the fact that I'm going against a MS Exchange 5.5 server. Anyone doing IMAP against Exchange? When I have the =INBOX open I do not get the new mail until I re-opens the inbox. I get a: Mailbox was externally modified. Flags may be wrong. Message and that is it. That tell me I need to re-open the mailbox to see new messages in it. On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:25:14PM +0200, Kai Blin wrote: * Charles Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [16/05/02, 09:18:29]: Which version of mutt are you running? It's only Mutt 1.3.25i (2002-01-01), so maybe they introduced a bug between my version and yours. If you leave mutt opened in =INBOX you will see the new mail coming in? Yes. As well as when I'm in any other mailbox on the server, as long as I'm connected. HTH, Kai -- Kai Blin Webmasterof http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/thm/molgen/ Univ. of Tuebingen Inst. of Human Genetics fon +49-7071-2974890 Wilhelmstrasse 27 Dept. of Molecular Genetics fax +49-7071-295233 D-72074 Tuebingen Do molecular biologists wear designer genes? -- Charles Gagnon | My views are my views and they http://unixrealm.com | do not represent those of anybody [EMAIL PROTECTED] | but me. If a mime is arrested do they tell him he has the right to talk? -- Dennis Miller
Attachments inline in body instead of as attachments
I'm attempting to automate the sending of a mail with an attachment (pdf file in this case). What's happening, though, is that when the email hits the remote server, the attachment is included in the body of the message, not as a normal attachment. Below is the command line I'm using just in case it helps: mutt -a test.pdf -s My subject [EMAIL PROTECTED] body.txt Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. PS, Also if it matters, the remote server that's having issues is Exhange.. I have no control over this. Mark A Cartwright
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 09:04]: Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which run open relays so that there's much more spam going through those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the from address. I made the from_envelope match the from address and have had no more rejections. Of course, I have not been a spammer or strong agitater. AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp account?? Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you use a relay, finally. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
[no subject]
I have install mutt 1.2.5.1 on sco openserver 5 i would like to have it in french, what have i to do ? thanks Try 'export LANG=fr_FR' before running mutt. Also, using a subject line of URGENT!!! was pretty rude. Essayez 'export LANG=fr_FR' avant mutt courant. D'ailleurs, utilisant une ligne Subject dURGENT!!! était assez grossier. msg28143/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 16:39:20 CEST] wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: % If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; % that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box % with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? % % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up % lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people Understood. % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his tech support and find out why he can't, no? More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that I've heard of providers not offering a mail relay to their customers. You pay low money and haven't access to any services (because there aren't any). But I think the majority of providers offers such. Depending on the quality of his ISP, he should get help. Maybe he will have also have to figure it out on his own. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 16:39:20 CEST] wrote: % ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: ... % % with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? % % % % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs % % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up ... % % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver % % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which % % Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his % tech support and find out why he can't, no? % % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), we don't know whether he was trying to relay through a supported channel or just trying to bounce off of someone else. Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone who will let him relay. % I've heard of providers not offering a mail relay to their % customers. You pay low money and haven't access to any Sometimes not even low; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) % services (because there aren't any). But I think the % majority of providers offers such. Yep. % % Depending on the quality of his ISP, he should get help. Maybe % he will have also have to figure it out on his own. We may never know! :-) % % Cheers, Rocco. :-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! msg28145/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: URGENT !!!!!!!!!!!!
* Marie Ris [EMAIL PROTECTED] [16/05/02, 10:45:03]: Bonjour, j'ai installé mutt sur sco openserver 5 version 1.2.5.1 et j'aimerais l'avoir en francais que dois-je faire ? merci I have install mutt 1.2.5.1 on sco openserver 5 i would like to have it in french, what have i to do ? thanks Marie I'd like to say something different first. Setting the subject to URGENT! won't usually get you a reply. Actually I got this mail by accident only, as I was working on my email filter. Usually I delete mails with a caps only subject, and I also delete mails with more than two ! in a row. I would appreciate if you would summerize your problem in the subject when posting to this list. This will make more people look at the mail than putting URGENT! there. There are some nice places in the internet about netiquette, perhaps you'd like to visit one of those. Now to reply to your mail: I guess you have to check for the language of your environment. It should be set to fr_FR or something like that. You'll also want to check if NLS is enabled in your version of mutt. Mon francais est tres mal, ce que j'ai seulement responde en anglais. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin Webmasterof http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/thm/molgen/ Univ. of Tuebingen Inst. of Human Genetics fon +49-7071-2974890 Wilhelmstrasse 27 Dept. of Molecular Genetics fax +49-7071-295233 D-72074 Tuebingen Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 09:04]: * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which run open relays so that there's much more spam going through those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the from address. I made the from_envelope match the from address and have had no more rejections. That's another kind of check. Some mail servers also check if the IP you try to connect from matches the DNS name of the HELO/EHLO command and vise versa. SMTP only requires any destination to accept any mail; futher delivery process may be blocked by any reason. But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was rejected. AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp account?? I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. Cheers, Rocco.
command line encryption
Hey, I just ask without much hope of success. I guess that there's no way to hand some text over to mutt and force it to encrypt it with a public key (uid is known)? Okay, I knew it wouldn't work. I need to send a file encrypted to an account via a cronjob. Is there any chance doing it in mutt or do I really have to write some default-headers to a file and append the encrypted to text to be piped to some sort of sendmail? I guess this will work. Is there anything I have to pay attention to when having encrypted text inline with content/ type: text/plain? Does mutt need anything special to correctly recognize and decrypt it via $check_ppg_traditional? Cheers, Rocco.
Re: your mail
Hi, * Mike Schiraldi [05/16/02 17:50:02 CEST] wrote: Also, using a subject line of URGENT!!! was pretty rude. Hmm, better than no subject... ;-) SCNR, Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 18:03:06 CEST] wrote: ...and then Rocco Rutte said... ... % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. I look at your mail within mutt and see nothing special; so I reply and suddenly see multiple exclamation marks (which were shortened to 1 by $display_filter)... ;-) (just a side note) Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone who will let him relay. Yes and no. Some freemail providers also offer POP-before-SMTP which means that he has to find out how long his IP is cached. For example, if this time limit is 15 minutes, just set up a cron job which runs fetchmail every 10 minutes and point postfix (or whatever) to the freemail provider's relay. It will then always work if the internet connection works. Sometimes not even low; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) I don't know any providers over at your location which doesn't matter. But AOL users may send mail, too with the access software (which is probably not pppd ;-) so I guess that there's no need for a relay since dial-up users may be authenticated by their line (and thus do not need any special account). Cheers, Rocco.
Re: command line encryption
msg.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 11:32]: Hi, * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 09:04]: * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which run open relays so that there's much more spam going through those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the from address. I made the from_envelope match the from address and have had no more rejections. That's another kind of check. Some mail servers also check if the IP you try to connect from matches the DNS name of the HELO/EHLO command and vise versa. SMTP only requires any destination to accept any mail; futher delivery process may be blocked by any reason. But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was rejected. Well, I'm not necessairly confident, but GAME. Does it work?? I'll only know if it bounces back to me (which may not happen) or you reply. AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp account?? I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. I think that with SuSE direct delivery is the easiest. It did not require any setup other than NOT setting mail to an smtp..xxx host. ps. I use postfix, not sendmail. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello again! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 18:03:06 CEST] wrote: % ...and then Rocco Rutte said... ... % % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay % % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that % % Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), % % It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not % syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should implement this in a transparent manner ;-) % I look at your mail within mutt and see nothing special; so I % reply and suddenly see multiple exclamation marks (which were Sorry, dude!!! There, is that better?? % shortened to 1 by $display_filter)... ;-) (just a side note) You had me lost there for a minute. You might still :-) % % Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that % ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to % switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone % who will let him relay. % % Yes and no. Some freemail providers also offer POP-before-SMTP Hey, cool. I would *love* to find one of those. Do you know of a list? % which means that he has to find out how long his IP is cached. % For example, if this time limit is 15 minutes, just set up a Right. % cron job which runs fetchmail every 10 minutes and point % postfix (or whatever) to the freemail provider's relay. It % will then always work if the internet connection works. Yep. That's just the sort of thing I'd need for a couple of users I have. % % Sometimes not even low; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a % relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) % % I don't know any providers over at your location which doesn't % matter. But AOL users may send mail, too with the access % software (which is probably not pppd ;-) so I guess that No, it sure ain't. I had to check into this in some detail recently, and the lowdown is that the only way to send mail out through AOL is to use their mailer. No, they don't block port 25, but they don't offer anything that listens to it, ether. % there's no need for a relay since dial-up users may be % authenticated by their line (and thus do not need any special % account). Right. AIUI that's how many ISPs do their dialup relaying since it's so much faster to check the address than to bother with actual authentication. % % Cheers, Rocco. 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! msg28154/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Steve, et al -- ...and then Steve Talley said... % % David T-G wrote: % % syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. % % Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the % message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter ... % % This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The Oh, right! I knew that this sort of thing sounded familiar, but couldn't remember exactly how... % output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new % message, and the old message is marked for deletion. Then he only has to worry about the message being appended at the end, but sometimes that's just the way it goes :-) % % Steve Thanks 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! msg28156/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
David T-G wrote: Steve, et al -- ...and then Steve Talley said... David T-G wrote: syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter ... This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The Oh, right! I knew that this sort of thing sounded familiar, but couldn't remember exactly how... output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. Then he only has to worry about the message being appended at the end, but sometimes that's just the way it goes :-) Right. But with sort=..., order within the mailbox is moot. :) Steve
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 12:12]: * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 11:32]: Hi, * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05-16-02 09:04]: * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was rejected. Well, I'm not necessairly confident, but GAME. Does it work?? I'll only know if it bounces back to me (which may not happen) or you reply. oops, ?? AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp account?? I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. I think that with SuSE direct delivery is the easiest. It did not require any setup other than NOT setting mail to an smtp..xxx host. ps. I use postfix, not sendmail. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm here again with my problem not solved ... What would be the problem that when I hit 'r' to reply to a message, the To: fields is filled with the recipient address and not with resply-to address? the headers are Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and when I hit 'r' mutt shows To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have verified (thanks Sven) that reply_to=ask-yes and 'r' is reply to a message key binding (default). This behaviour is not for all messages. How can I fix this? -- Eduardo Gargiulo ejg @ ar.homelinux.org msg28159/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eduardo -- ...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said... % % What would be the problem that when I hit 'r' to reply to a message, % the To: fields is filled with the recipient address and not with % resply-to address? ... % I have verified (thanks Sven) that reply_to=ask-yes and 'r' is reply to % a message key binding (default). Just for fun, is there a Mail-Followup-To: header being set anywhere in there? no, there isn't. Look at this, in the following message, mutt ask me to reply to Reply-To header address or To address. - Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 7773 invoked by uid 502); 16 May 2002 23:03:43 - From: Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please confirm your message Date: 16 May 2002 20:03:43 -0300 Message-ID: 1021590223.7771.TMDA@masq To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.55 - but in the following example, mutt just fills the To header with the wrong address - Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 7803 invoked by uid 502); 16 May 2002 23:04:55 - From: Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please confirm your message Date: 16 May 2002 20:04:54 -0300 Message-ID: 1021590294.7799.TMDA@masq To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.55 - I'm using folder-hook's to manage accounts. -- Eduardo Gargiulo ejg @ ar.homelinux.org msg28161/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
Eduardo -- [Sorry for not quoting; in a hurry.] Aha! Does this have anything to do with $alternates, then? Other differences I see are that the From: hostname in the mail that fails is your usual one. It looks from the Message-ID that your system might truly be the one in the successful mail's M-ID:, but I haven't seen you use that before; are you setting $hostname, too? 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! msg28162/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Strange multi-color quoting behavior
* On Thu, 16 May 2002, David T-G wrote: You should probably continue to quoted5 or quoted6 to fill out your test, because ... [ ... ] ... this appears to be looping except for the rematch on the last '' line. Yes, Mutt loops through the colors again if you go past the defined quote levels. That's what I wanted. While they may be, it doesn't really make sense for there to be two first-level quotes with different delimiters, even if you might split them up for vparsing. A more practical example might be one reply to two originals, perhaps like Quoting John: % he said this % he did?? % and then that % no! Quoting Bill: % # that was messier % # and I wouldn't want it % yeah, you said it or so. Now you would see the outer quotes (%) in color 1 and you might expect to see the inner quotes ( and #) both in color 2 but mutt would (correctly, IMHO) identify them as separate (after all, one is John and the other Bill) and color them as 2 and 3, respectively. Right. % back to the first leading quote prefix ( above), resets it % again. (Vim, for example, seems to display this correctly, % although it uses different quote prefixes by default.) I'm interested in your definition of correct, perhaps clarified through detailed description of an example. My definition of correct matches mutt's apparent performance. Correct = How I thought it should work at the time ;-) My original thinking was that the color should depend on only the level of the quote, and when I saw that vim did it this way, it reinforced my thinking that maybe Mutt was doing something wrong or I had something configured wrong. But it's looking like Mutt is right and now I think I prefer the way Mutt handles it. -- John
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
At 19:49 -0300 16 May 2002, Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and when I hit 'r' mutt shows To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have verified (thanks Sven) that reply_to=ask-yes and 'r' is reply to a message key binding (default). This behaviour is not for all messages. How can I fix this? Try unset reply_self. -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.schrab.com/aaron/ It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
At 12:32 -0500 16 May 2002, I wrote: At 19:49 -0300 16 May 2002, Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and when I hit 'r' mutt shows To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have verified (thanks Sven) that reply_to=ask-yes and 'r' is reply to a message key binding (default). This behaviour is not for all messages. How can I fix this? Try unset reply_self. Ack! That should be set reply_self. -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.schrab.com/aaron/ MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reply-to problem - check $reply-to!
Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:32 -0500 16 May 2002, I wrote: At 19:49 -0300 16 May 2002, Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and when I hit 'r' mutt shows To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have verified (thanks Sven) that reply_to=ask-yes and 'r' is reply to a message key binding (default). This behaviour is not for all messages. How can I fix this? Try unset reply_self. Ack! That should be set reply_self. Yes, it works! thanks. -- Eduardo Gargiulo ejg @ ar.homelinux.org msg28166/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: David T-G wrote: It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should implement this in a transparent manner ;-) This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back to my box. But thanks for mentioning. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco Rutte wrote: Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: David T-G wrote: It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should implement this in a transparent manner ;-) This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back to my box. Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. Steve
Re: Strange multi-color quoting behavior
* On 2002.05.16, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * John Iverson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original thinking was that the color should depend on only the level of the quote, and when I saw that vim did it this way, it reinforced my thinking that maybe Mutt was doing something wrong or I had something configured wrong. But it's looking like Mutt is right and now I think I prefer the way Mutt handles it. I don't prefer it. I don't find that multiple quotation styles at the *same* quotation depth is a very common occurrence. Much more common is that I'm being mailed something that begins with a column of '#' marks -- a shell script posted in reply to someone's comments, say: your script doesn't cover quite all cases. can you post a fix? OK, try this: #!/bin/sh # revision 2 # by request echo Hello, solar system! But I don't see: this is person 1's quote [text] # this is person 2's quote [text] more often than I see: this is person 3's quote [text] this is person 4's quote [text] That is, never -- except when someone replies to multiple messages at once. But then the same quotation symbols are used for each block. In other words, case 2 is more common than case 1, so case 1 doesn't merit special treatment vs. case 2. I'd like to see this [attached] colored as one expects, where color depends only on the level of the quote. I'm not sure how to do it with current code, though. (This kind of case is why I used not to use quotedN colors. I'm still trying to decide how to react -- quit using them again, or try to patch it. :P) -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago ---BeginMessage--- Foo == Foo Bar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Foo Mom tried to keep the peace with: Foo % Scamp == Nutty Rapscallion [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Foo % Scamp Another Guy once said: Foo % Scamp | On Mayday, Thursvember 16, Trouble Maker Foo % Scamp | [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Foo % Scamp | Let's start a religious war about quotation styles! Foo % Scamp | We haven't had one in a while! Foo % Scamp | Foo % Scamp | Let's not. Foo % Foo % Scamp Oh, come on. You know you want to take me on again. Foo % Foo % Oh, stop it, both of you. Foo Foo Stop what? He started it. How about we jut try to talk about how to cope with all kinds of quoting styles, instead? -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago ---End Message---
Re: filtering and patches (was Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub)
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * Steve Talley [05/16/02 21:00:35 CEST] wrote: % Rocco Rutte wrote: % * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: % %This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The ... % I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem % but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my % filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back % to my box. Be aware that this doesn't automatically make anything that gets processed by $display_filter get rewritten to the mailbox; you have to specifically filter a message, and you can use your $display_filter to do that if it's written to handle it. In this case, while it would be helpful, it wouldn't be transparent because you don't know (as in my ! example previously) that the message needs work. You could turn off your $display_filter and then filter-edit (as I like to call it, especially since I've forgotten the name of the new function provided by the patch :-) the message when you see a problem, but that's your call. % % Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is % displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. % % Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few % problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to % redraw the screen via ^L. Yeah, stderr will hang around on your display 'cuz that likes to only manage stdout (after all, errors are for exceptional conditions and shouldn't be grabbed away by an app unless you really really mean it, like when you redirect to stdout). % % Cheers, Rocco. 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! msg28172/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco Rutte wrote: Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 21:00:35 CEST] wrote: Rocco Rutte wrote: * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back to my box. Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to redraw the screen via ^L. Do you have $wait_key set? Steve
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 23:35:59 CEST] wrote: Rocco Rutte wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to redraw the screen via ^L. Do you have $wait_key set? Yes. The problem is pgpgpg which is more verbose than I'd like it to be. But $wait_key doesn't affect $display_filter. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: your mail
On 18:50 16 May 2002, Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | * Mike Schiraldi [05/16/02 17:50:02 CEST] wrote: | Also, using a subject line of | URGENT!!! was pretty rude. | | Hmm, better than no subject... ;-) Not really. Especially since a language setting isn't URGENT It's certainly frustrating and inconvenient, but if it were urgent he'd be asking someone and/or reading documentation. Mailing lists are often too slow, and if your problem is with your mail reader then a mailing list is not where I'd seek help first. -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ Mountain rescue teams insist the all climbers wear helmets, and fall haedfirst. They are then impacted into a small globular mass easily stowed in a rucsac. - Tom Patey, who didnt, and wasnt
Re: Still fighting to get clickable URLs via w3m
On 14:38 13 May 2002, Marco Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I do my terminal work in a gnome terminal. This has the advantage of
| recognizing urls triggered by mouse over. To launch a browser, either
| right click for the context sensitive menu or hold alt and left click.
|
| I know, but this doesn't work with Hidden URLS, does it? (See my
| original example) That is why I was hoping to get w3m working, because
| it *displays* plain, well formatted ASCII, but *knows* which strings
| correspond to other hidden strings which are URLs. Would the gnome
| terminal open the right URL if given the to know more click HERE
| string?
Hmm. It would be nice if w3m would recite URLs inline as an option, but it
doesn't. How about this script:
detab ${1+$@} \
| sed 's|\([Aa] [^]*[Hh][Rr][Ee][Ff]=\([^
]*\)[^]*\)\(.*\)\(/[Aa]\)|\1\3 [ \2 ]\4|g' \
| w3m -dump -T text/html
I'm about to start using it for HTML filtering in place of plain w3m.
It hacks the HTML to turn:
A HREF=urlfoo/A
into:
A HREF=urlfoo [ url ]/A
which shows up nicely. It doesn't resolve relative URLs, but HTML email shoudn't
have any, not having a useful baseurl. This script is available here:
http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/scripts/unhtml
for use in your mailcap like so:
text/html; unhtml %s; copiousoutput
It seems to work fairly well here.
What say you?
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
If the Earth is the size of a pea in New York, then the Sun is a beachball 50m
away, Pluto is 2km away, and the next nearest star is in Tokyo. Now shrink
Pluto's orbit into a coffee cup; then our Milky Way Galaxy fills North America.
Re: your mail
Hi, On 17 May 2002, Cameron Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18:50 16 May 2002, Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Hmm, better than no subject... ;-) Not really. Especially since a language setting isn't URGENT Especially since usually it's not urgent for someone who *reads* the message, and who usually does not like to be hurried at all. It's certainly frustrating and inconvenient, but if it were urgent he'd be asking someone and/or reading documentation. I just grepped the documentation for some mentioning of LC_*, LANG, or interpretation of environment variables in general, without any success. Perhaps some note should be added (or listed explicitely in the contents if it is indeed hidden somewhere in there and I just missed it). So long, Jochen. -- f u cn rd ths, u mst hv bn sng nx
Re: Attachments inline in body instead of as attachments
* Mark Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-05-16 15:23]: I'm attempting to automate the sending of a mail with an attachment (pdf file in this case). What's happening, though, is that when the email hits the remote server, the attachment is included in the body of the message, not as a normal attachment. says who? Below is the command line I'm using just in case it helps: mutt -a test.pdf -s My subject [EMAIL PROTECTED] body.txt that's fine! Send yourself a BCC (mutt -b $yourself). I'm pretty sure it'll be alright. PS, Also if it matters, the remote server that's having issues is Exhange.. I have no control over this. we have no control over this Exchange thing, either. Sven -- Exchange Exchange!
