Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Wed 31.Jan'07 at 11:13:25 -0500 -= _You_ have several options: 1) educate your eMail partners to quote mutt-friendly (txt-only). 2) use autoview with a graphical browser = wiki FAQ. 3) use autoview with a script that converts such (*censored*) eMail to some sane usable format by converting the html/css coloring instructions to ' ' sequences. I recommend 1). I guess that I was looking for option 3. Some sort of extension for w3m (or another text based browser) that lets you do something reasonable when dumping html with FONT COLOR tags to text (other than just removing the tags). I'm not aware of any existing txt-browser that does this. When you find one, then tell me. Otherwise you have to script yourself. I'd be interested even in this (even if only to learn ;). Are you serious about option 1? Why not? Generally it's good to have visual aids. However, the implementation varies, and I prefer a simple data format that works even without a dedicated visual aids interpreter (human readable): i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
* On 2007.02.01, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Rado S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you serious about option 1? Why not? Generally it's good to have visual aids. However, the implementation varies, and I prefer a simple data format that works even without a dedicated visual aids interpreter (human readable): i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I think Marc is in our camp. But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell the difference in their way, and most people don't want to deviate too far from whatever happens by default. Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that they should usually doesn't work out very well. This argument must be taken up with developers, not users. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: Setting timezone to local timezone
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:51:24AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
#!/bin/bash
# save the message to a file
cat - /tmp/timezoneconvert.$$
# extract the date header
thedate=$( awk '/^Date: / !i { $1= ; print $0 ; i=1}' )
# convert to the current timezone (defined by TZ)
thedate=$( date -d $thedate )
# output the modified message
awk { if (/^Date: /) print \Date: $thedate\; else print $0; } \
/tmp/timezoneconvert.$$
# clean up
rm /tmp/timezoneconvert.$$
Say that script is named ~/bin/convertdate.sh, you would then add the
following to your muttrc:
set display_filter=$HOME/bin/convertdate.sh
Neat, I didn't know about display_filter.
Maybe I can use it to join URLs that span lines
(or substitute tinyurl or other short mappings).
By the way, for security reasons, if you're making temp files,
you should probably use a tmp dir in your home, and/or mktemp
for creating the filenames and such.
--
The driving force behind innovation is sublimation.
-- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/
For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpWd5JZdhtqf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt, gpg, inline, attachments
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:58:10AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: On Wednesday, January 31 at 04:18 PM, quoth Stefan M??rkl: I know that officially this isn't possible, but can I make mutt sign and encrypt messages with attachments inline somehow? One of my contacts uses broken software so he can't handle PGP/MIME messages. However, it IS possible to encrypt/sign just the text-part of a message that includes attachments, you just have to be aware that an encrypted message with an attachment CANNOT encrypt the attachment. Alternately, you can use shar or something to make several files into one, gpg-encrypt it, and then insert that into the body. That's the poor man's attachment, and it seemed to work for Usenet for a few decades. Of course the recipient has to pipe it through sh to extract all the files, but... you have to use something to serialize/deserialize, since his mailer can't handle multipart MIME and if you don't want to send seperate emails. Or you could use tar and uuencode/uudecode, etc. Many ways, but obviously none as easy as installing a MIME compatible email client. A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. That sounds like something Macchiavelli wrote in The Prince: ``Therefore, a prince doesn't need to have all the qualities mentioned earlier, but it is necessary that he appear to have them. I'll even add to this: having good qualities and always practicing them is harmful, while appearing to practice them is useful. It's good to appear to be pious, faithful, humane, honest, and religious, and it's good to be all those things; but as long as one keeps in mind that when the need arises you can and will change into the opposite. It needs to be understood that a prince, and especially a prince recently installed, cannot observe all those qualities which make men good, and it is often necessary in order to preserve the state to act contrary to faity, contrary to mercy, contrary to humaneness, and contrary to religion. And therefore he needs a spririt disposed to follow wherever the winds of fortune and the variability of affairs leads him. As I said above, it's necessary that he not depart from right but that he follow evil.'' ``When you are doing business with a religious son of a %*#!*, get it in writing. His word don't mean %#!@ with the good lord telling him how to $#@ you on a deal'' -- William Burroughs -- The driving force behind innovation is sublimation. -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpx4hXTsUYKT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 10:25:13 -0600 -= i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I think Marc is in our camp. However, Marc is uncertain about bringing this up with his limited-/ outlook-only-/ awareness collegues. But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell the difference in their way, and most people don't want to deviate too far from whatever happens by default. That's true ... but is this (default=outlook/ html exclusive) what we mutters want? (Marc being the one in this case) This reasoning prevents freedom of weapon-choice/ personal optimization/ general improvement: that's what mutters want. Not all defaults/ features are good just because they came first. Isn't every company/ undertaking interested in improvement to better succeed? Better interoperability suits them, too! (Especially when they learn that there's an eMail-world beyond the company limits. ;) As often as people don't care for a better way, as often they don't care for _any_ way, as long as it doesn't bother them much. They just need a clue not to worry about a minor easy change (like selecting text/plain ' ' quoting over html in an options box) and some conviction to actually make the step. People are more friendly/ helpful than many of us worry they are not. Why keep suffering if things can be _easily_ changed when known? When people learn that a _simple_ change helps both sides without permanent losses to anyone, they are likely to apply it. If _we_ mutters don't do anything about it, it won't change by itself, as you noted _they_ won't do on their own. So... what's there to lose? Temporary friction. What is to gain? Lasting improvement for all. What does it take: just to ask them and patience to work against an inert mass. It won't hurt Marc to ask, except he's afraid of asking. Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that they should usually doesn't work out very well. The problem is that mere trying/ learning/ asking is considered as negative force that must be denied, as if thinking hurts them, even more so any actual effort no matter how small and despite no permanent drawbacks for them once applied. So it's better not even to try to make things better? You (Marc) want to support this ignorance? It's up to you, you have to live with either consequence (short term no pain or long term gain), neither David nor I. ;) Improvement doesn't come without change, and this always causes friction to some end: no gain without pain. It's just a matter whether you want a) improvement and b) are willing to do what it takes. Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot. The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps and see the big gain that lies behind it. This argument must be taken up with developers, not users. Uh, huh?! I don't understand what you refer to now. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: Setting timezone to local timezone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, February 1 at 11:52 AM, quoth Travis H.: Neat, I didn't know about display_filter. Maybe I can use it to join URLs that span lines (or substitute tinyurl or other short mappings). Well, for *display*, yes you can (to some extent, anyway). If you want things to be joined for when you feed them to urlview, it's easier to simply change your urlview command, to be something like this: macro pager \cB pipe-messageuniteurls.sh | urlviewenter By the way, for security reasons, if you're making temp files, you should probably use a tmp dir in your home, and/or mktemp for creating the filenames and such. HEH - ya asks fer off-the-cuff scripts from a mailing list, ya gets what ya gets. The point was to give you the idea, not a hardened solution. I take no responsibility for insecurity, instantaneous computer death, missing files, or hair loss that may result from the use of the unmodified code I gave you. You want such guarantees, contact me for my fee list. ;) ~Kyle - -- If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. Unless you're a table. -- Mitch Hedberg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFFwjdxBkIOoMqOI14RApqnAJ0dnMt4ixcWwzcSCZjTS6HMeNKvCgCg+XOJ 5VimKEaab9akXfVaJl6ShnA= =YT/w -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: reading color quoted replies
There are many factors in how people behave. Interoperability of personal preference ranks low for most people. Has no one ever asked you how you can stand not reading e-mail in full blazing GUI glory? I said this is a matter for developers, not for users, because developers (and administrators) are responsible for setting up users' capabilities and defaults and ensuring interoperability. I suspect most users would be fine with quoting, if that were the default. Since it's not, they don't use it. But even if it's a chosen setting, it most often aligns with what they like the look of, not what they understand. It's a lot to ask of many people that they frame their workflow around issues they don't understand or want to understand, just because I pitched them a set of reasons that I said were logically sound. Non-enthusiasts just want it to work with a minimum of fuss and configuration, and if it looks like it works to them, then it works. Have you worked in direct user support? For each professional or enthusiast, there are hundreds who just use computers as a tool, the way you would use a hammer or a gas oven. Few people want to modify their ovens, even if oven engineers have suggestions for how to do it. I don't disagree with your rationale, I just don't think that training everyone else to think right isn't very practical as a solution to interop problems. Let me know when you convince them all, though, and I'll pay for drinks. :) -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: reading color quoted replies
I have a vendor who occasionally sends me replies quoted this way. What's ironic is that he normally top-posts, and I suspect he's doing it this way because *I* normally quote inline in response to him. Even better, he sometimes writes his bits in all caps ON THE SAME LINE as parts of my quoted response. What I usually do is just guess which bits are mine, and then reformat the response the way I want it. If I couldn't guess, I'd probably save the html to a file and view it in a browser. I don't think it's reasonable to expect mutt to guess / work around this type of behavior. That's way outside the scope of what mutt can do reasonably. w
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 13:05:27 -0600 -= Has no one ever asked you how you can stand not reading e-mail in full blazing GUI glory? (I'm not sure they'd call it blazing glory in the first place. It's often not that they like it but rather have no choice or just stick with what comes first) No, on the contrary, 1st they are puzzled by the strange look. (http://WIKI.mutt.org/?ConfigList) If that doesn't drive them away already (declaring me crazy), they admire me for using such an advanced (==non-GUI/-mouse) tool and how efficient it works for me, but it's too hard for me. And if they still haven't given up, they say great, maybe I should switch, too. Admittedly those are _very_ rare, but that was not the original question anyway. ;) I said this is a matter for developers, not for users, because developers (and administrators) are responsible for setting up users' capabilities and defaults and ensuring interoperability. Yes, but users can feedback their experiences to the people in charge so they can reconsider. Users just have to do it so admins can learn about it at all. Otherwise admins will keep thinking they do a good job. No comment doesn't necessarily equate to well done, admin but maybe I'm too lame to bitch and kick your butt to fix things once for all, so I take pains for a poor workaround or just give up. ;) But even if it's a chosen setting, it most often aligns with what they like the look of, not what they understand. As well this doesn't require to exclude each other! Often reason and convenience are close to each other (mostly?). We won't know unless we learn by asking/ trying. It's a lot to ask of many people that they frame their workflow around issues they don't understand or want to understand, just because I pitched them a set of reasons that I said were logically sound. Non-enthusiasts just want it to work with a minimum of fuss and configuration, and if it looks like it works to them, then it works. No big discussions or explanations needed: just hit the checkbox, done. I have yet to meet _conscious_ TOFU posters in that they really use/ read the quotes _in every_ mail. Most of them could very well just not quote at all without losing anything. Have you worked in direct user support? For each professional or enthusiast, there are hundreds who just use computers as a tool, the way you would use a hammer or a gas oven. Few people want to modify their ovens, even if oven engineers have suggestions for how to do it. I know the numbers, as well I know that dominant lazy attitude. But at the same time people are not stupid or unfriendly despite being lazy _on their own_: if asked, they can move in favour of _somebody else_ and not be angry about it if the move is gentle. You just have to be brave enough to _ask_ them rather than _assume_ the worst. I don't disagree with your rationale, I just don't think that training everyone else to think right isn't very practical as a solution to interop problems. Heh, they don't have to understand it all to make a small move. Many people are just friendly trustful by itself. ;) Let me know when you convince them all, though, and I'll pay for drinks. :) I'll remind you, no worries. :) -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Problems importing x509 certs previously exported from thunderbird
Dear all, for a while I have been using S/MIME encryption with Thunderbird. Since I have been working with mutt for much longer, I tried to import the x509-certificates from Thunderbird into mutt's smime_keys environment. Without success, unfortunately. When I run smime_keys add_pem pem_file The following error message is returned Not all contents were bagged. can't continue. at \ /usr/bin/smime_keys line 571. After many attempts without success, I would be more than happy if this mailing list could give me hints and help -- as urgently required. Thanks in advance for any help! Please contact me if I can provide more information. wbr, Lukas -- Lukas Ruf http://www.lpr.ch | Ad Personam rbacs http://wiki.lpr.ch | Restaurants, Bars and Clubs Raw IP http://www.rawip.org | Low Level Network Programming Style http://email.rawip.org | How to write emails http://lists.lpr.ch/muttprint | muttprint mailing list
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Rado S wrote: =- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 10:25:13 -0600 -= i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I think Marc is in our camp. However, Marc is uncertain about bringing this up with his limited-/ outlook-only-/ awareness collegues. I just don't understand how it's practical, or is necessarily a good thing for mutt/mutters to go on that sort of pilgrimage. But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell the difference in their way, and most people don't want to deviate too far from whatever happens by default. That's true ... but is this (default=outlook/ html exclusive) what we mutters want? (Marc being the one in this case) This reasoning prevents freedom of weapon-choice/ personal optimization/ general improvement: that's what mutters want. Not all defaults/ features are good just because they came first. Isn't every company/ undertaking interested in improvement to better succeed? Better interoperability suits them, too! (Especially when they learn that there's an eMail-world beyond the company limits. ;) This just isn't realistic. What sort of view of mutt do you think an outlook user (potential mutt user) is going to get if I tell them Hey check out this great text based MUA that I have... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to tell them not to use it. The reality is that they're going to be thinking Why would anyone be using a client that crippled them in that way? And if that's what they're thinking then they're not going to have the view of interoperability that you suggest, they're going to view mutt as a program that doesn't (fully) support an interoperable standard like html. Shouldn't the mutt developer take your point of view and be interested in improvement to better succeed? In reality, it's mutt's success in retaining and building a user base that's more in jeopardy than my company loosing potential business with mutters. As often as people don't care for a better way, as often they don't care for _any_ way, as long as it doesn't bother them much. They just need a clue not to worry about a minor easy change (like selecting text/plain ' ' quoting over html in an options box) and some conviction to actually make the step. People are more friendly/ helpful than many of us worry they are not. Even if they are friendly and comply, ultimately it works against you (see above). Why keep suffering if things can be _easily_ changed when known? When people learn that a _simple_ change helps both sides without permanent losses to anyone, they are likely to apply it. If _we_ mutters don't do anything about it, it won't change by itself, as you noted _they_ won't do on their own. So... what's there to lose? Temporary friction. What is to gain? Lasting improvement for all. What does it take: just to ask them and patience to work against an inert mass. It won't hurt Marc to ask, except he's afraid of asking. I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its futile, or worse, detrimental. Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that they should usually doesn't work out very well. The problem is that mere trying/ learning/ asking is considered as negative force that must be denied, as if thinking hurts them, even more so any actual effort no matter how small and despite no permanent drawbacks for them once applied. So it's better not even to try to make things better? You (Marc) want to support this ignorance? It's up to you, you have to live with either consequence (short term no pain or long term gain), neither David nor I. ;) Improvement doesn't come without change, and this always causes friction to some end: no gain without pain. It's just a matter whether you want a) improvement and b) are willing to do what it takes. Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot. The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps and see the big gain that lies behind it. Yes, but equally sad are those who waste their lives pipe dreaming. Having enough foresight to know which battles will bring gain sorts the successful from the unsuccessful. Marc
HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:59:51PM -0500, Marc Vaillant wrote: This just isn't realistic. What sort of view of mutt do you think an outlook user (potential mutt user) is going to get if I tell them Hey check out this great text based MUA that I have... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to tell them not to use it. Disclaimer: I am a security enthusiast I would say your best angle is a security angle. See if you can get someone with the authority to recognize that reading your email with a web browser and/or sending HTML poses a threat to the security of the company and the users who don't know better. If they don't know what phishing is, explain it to them. Be sure you communicate how HTML rendering (and especially javascript) have capabilities to confuse and mislead the user. Further, say that email worked fine with no phishing incidents for a good 20 years before HTML came along. Do you think HTML email is so important that the Internet did without it for 20 years? If the person needs to send an attachment, that's fine. That takes care of any argument about images. While the content of an attachment may not be obvious from its filename (a book and its cover), at least you know 1) Who sent it (modulo sender spoofing; HTML can only make it worse) 2) That it is an attachment 3) That you are downloading and/or executing that attachment. If they have any doubts about the misleading potential of overly complex formats like HTML and all the active crap that it can contain, I'll be happy to convince them. Just send me written permission, your email address, and view each email, then email me and tell me what they did. Then I'll show you what you didn't know they did. You will, however, be on your own when it comes to cleaning up the resulting mess. You can see a harmless example of many of them by going to this: http://www.digicrime.com/ (NOTE: Browsing this site will cause all sorts of surprising behavior, including sending emails from your machine). If you need some argument by authority, I point you to the fact that the DoD banned the use of HTML email and OWA: http://www.fcw.com/article97178-12-22-06-Web On a personal level, you can always create an autoresponder that says something like, I'm sorry, but I was expecting an email from you and instead I got a web page. I do not use a web browser to read email, so I cannot view this. If you wish to communicate by email, please try sending one. Yes, but equally sad are those who waste their lives pipe dreaming. Having enough foresight to know which battles will bring gain sorts the successful from the unsuccessful. I hear the same arguments about using Windows instead of other OSes. -- The driving force behind innovation is sublimation. -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpYkE36F8EPk.pgp Description: PGP signature
