Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:10:45PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> But you're asking for "proof that it reached us as the recipient" for
> multiple recipients apparently, with a *single* acknowledgement.
> That's just not possible in any sort of system.

No. You get me wrong, repeatedly. I'm asking for a "proof" that a message has
reached a single role. It does not matter if more then one person can actually
be the role.

Patrick

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Chris G]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:58:16PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> > But as I understand it in most 'normal' MUAs if you have "one address
> > for several people" then it's split into separate messages at the
> > sender end of things and from then on is simply a separate message to
> > each recipient.
> 
> But in which way does that matter? The question were: Would it make sense to
> send confirmations from every person representating a specific role? It is a
> social questioning, not a technical. And the answer is a clear 'No'.
> 
Fine, but if what you're asking for is impossible it seems ver
reasonable to say it's impossible.

> > Huh?  How can the postman ask you to confirm the sending?  Post
> > doesn't work like that and neither does E-Mail in general.  I post a
> > letter by sticking it in a letter box, I don't hand it to the postman.
> 
> Right, in case of normal letters. But there are "registered mails" (i don't
> know whats its name in english, actually right. Its "Einschreiben" in 
> Germany),
> which are delivered by the postman to the hand of the recipient, who then has
> to sign the receival. The receiver then gets this sign as a proof that the
> sending _reached_ the recipient. Offcourse it is better then the mail
> disposition notification, but there is no better alternative that is widely
> supported *and* in our process this function just works, because it is not
> meant to be a lawcourt-safe proof that it reached us as the recipient.
> 
But you're asking for "proof that it reached us as the recipient" for
multiple recipients apparently, with a *single* acknowledgement.
That's just not possible in any sort of system.

-- 
Chris Green

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> But as I understand it in most 'normal' MUAs if you have "one address
> for several people" then it's split into separate messages at the
> sender end of things and from then on is simply a separate message to
> each recipient.

But in which way does that matter? The question were: Would it make sense to
send confirmations from every person representating a specific role? It is a
social questioning, not a technical. And the answer is a clear 'No'.

> at the receiving end and not the MUA - in which case having mutt
> return an acknowledgement isn't going to do what you apparently want.

Right. mutt sending an acknowledgement is really not what I want, because that
sounds like an automatism. But in fact it seems to me as it would be better, if
I had a tool inside of mutt to ease myself the answering.

> Huh?  How can the postman ask you to confirm the sending?  Post
> doesn't work like that and neither does E-Mail in general.  I post a
> letter by sticking it in a letter box, I don't hand it to the postman.

Right, in case of normal letters. But there are "registered mails" (i don't
know whats its name in english, actually right. Its "Einschreiben" in Germany),
which are delivered by the postman to the hand of the recipient, who then has
to sign the receival. The receiver then gets this sign as a proof that the
sending _reached_ the recipient. Offcourse it is better then the mail
disposition notification, but there is no better alternative that is widely
supported *and* in our process this function just works, because it is not
meant to be a lawcourt-safe proof that it reached us as the recipient.

Regards,
Patrick

Re: Binding to CTRL + arrowkeys

[Gary Johnson]

On 2007-10-13, Felix 'buebo' Kakrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm using mutt 1.5.16 with the sidebar patch and I'd like to use the ctrl +
> the arrow keys to move around in the sidebar.
> 
> I've tried this in ~/.muttrc
> 
> bind index \Csidebar-prev
> bind index \C  sidebar-next
> bind index \C sidebar-open
> 
> but it doesn't work. Quotes don't change anything.
> 
> Any ideas how this would work?

There is no standard way that I know of to send codes for those key 
combinations from a terminal such as xterm to a terminal application 
such as mutt.  The standard capabilities and keys are described in 
the terminfo man page.

To see what mutt receives when you type a key or key combination, 
execute this in mutt:

   :exec what-key

HTH,
Gary

Re: Mailbox setup

[Patrick Shanahan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

* Rem P Roberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-13-07 12:01]:
> Like most folks I have separate recipes and mailboxes for my most frequently 
> received
> email.  I also created a recipe for email addressed to me for which there
> is no specific mailbox.  That mail is directed to #HOME/Mail/inbox.
> What is happening in some cases is that email that has a proprietary
> mailbox and recipe is going to the inbox instead.  Basically what I was
> trying to achieve was to have general email go the inbox instead of
> having to read it in /var/mail/rem.  I obviously failed, but the
> solution isn't yet apparent to me.

And you may obtain little help, even here w/o posing some specifics.
I cannot afford a reliable crystal ball.

> I realize that this is basically a procmail question, but so far that
> list has been unresponsive in my attempts to subscribe.


List-Post: 
List-Subscribe:
,

List-Unsubscribe:
,

List-Archive: 
List-Help: 
List-Id: discussion of the procmail program 


- -- 
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn4472 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHEPg/ClSjbQz1U5oRAkseAJ9bGjfRLwzF9sfJzqmpiXYwL/aoDwCgpfE3
pXhMrpLACFzUqxj61u9aVCE=
=3baG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Binding to CTRL + arrowkeys

[Felix 'buebo' Kakrow]

Hello,
I'm using mutt 1.5.16 with the sidebar patch and I'd like to use the ctrl +
the arrow keys to move around in the sidebar.

I've tried this in ~/.muttrc

bind index \Csidebar-prev
bind index \C  sidebar-next
bind index \C sidebar-open

but it doesn't work. Quotes don't change anything.

Any ideas how this would work?

Cheers
Felix
-- 
~/.sig


pgpt24pPycYwH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Mailbox setup

[Rem P Roberti]

Like most folks I have separate recipes and mailboxes for my most frequently 
received
email.  I also created a recipe for email addressed to me for which there
is no specific mailbox.  That mail is directed to #HOME/Mail/inbox.
What is happening in some cases is that email that has a proprietary
mailbox and recipe is going to the inbox instead.  Basically what I was
trying to achieve was to have general email go the inbox instead of
having to read it in /var/mail/rem.  I obviously failed, but the
solution isn't yet apparent to me.

I realize that this is basically a procmail question, but so far that
list has been unresponsive in my attempts to subscribe.

Rem   

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Chris G]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:13:11PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 01:37:13PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> > Surely if a mail is sent to (say) ten recipients it's pretty useless
> > to know that it got to just one of them.  If all ten recipients had
> 
> Eh.. no?! If you send it to 10 different recipients, with each representing a
> different role, then you are right. But if you have one address for several
> people then it is somewhat obvious, that each person is the representative of 
> a
> role that only needs to acknowledge the receival of the mail _once_.
> Believe me: If every (currently 3) people that read the mail would acknowledge
> that our customer would sureley not feel this funny.
> 
But as I understand it in most 'normal' MUAs if you have "one address
for several people" then it's split into separate messages at the
sender end of things and from then on is simply a separate message to
each recipient.  I suppose if there's an alias for a lot of people at
the receiving end then it's different but in that case it means that
the return receipt is coming from the mail handling software (MTA ?)
at the receiving end and not the MUA - in which case having mutt
return an acknowledgement isn't going to do what you apparently want.


> > MUAs that understood the receipt request thing wouldn't they all
> > acknowledge?  If not then it's an even more un-useful facility than
> 
> No, they don't, because they ask the recipient in *every* case. That is like
> the postman that asks you to confirm the sending of a letter. Its only
> different in that he does not deliver the mail if you don't confirm the 
> sending
> of a letter.
> 
Huh?  How can the postman ask you to confirm the sending?  Post
doesn't work like that and neither does E-Mail in general.  I post a
letter by sticking it in a letter box, I don't hand it to the postman.
Similarly I send an E-Mail by giving it to sendmail or possibly by
handing it to a fairly local SMTP port, neither of those can usefully
give any sort of 'proof' that the mail has gone anywhere at all.

-- 
Chris Green

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Kyle Wheeler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday, October 13 at 12:50 PM, quoth Patrick Schoenfeld:
>On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:35:02PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> Thus, any message that does not have an X-Disposition-Sent header is a 
>> message that you haven't sent a response to, and messages that DO have 
>> such a header won't trigger the macro.
>
>That does not work (at least in my case) because the TO-address is (often)
>forwarded to a group of people, where one might not send such a confirmation,
>when another already did. So a question is probably the best way to go, because
>the people in the group usually know if someone already sent the confirmation.
>
>> I don't see what that missing functionality might be. Maybe I'm 
>> missing something.
>
>Well, see above. The ideas others and I had so far are all lacking something,
>that the MDA functions gives.

How does an MDA-enabled client communicate to other clients that a 
given email has already been responded to? And what's stopping the 
send-mdn.sh script from asking the user a question?

~Kyle
- -- 
If the president is the head of the American body politic, Congress is 
its gastrointestinal tract. Its vast and convoluted inner workings may 
be mysterious and unpleasant, but in the end they excrete a great deal 
of material whose successful passage is crucial to our nation's 
survival. This is Congress's duty.
 -- Jon Stewart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iD8DBQFHEOZ4BkIOoMqOI14RAro9AKCobhTvRUlFl6AYLqwRxk3DBGtRCACfWWXj
kLYKKU0lyq9IMRFLJWRiV70=
=eFVk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 01:37:13PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
> Surely if a mail is sent to (say) ten recipients it's pretty useless
> to know that it got to just one of them.  If all ten recipients had

Eh.. no?! If you send it to 10 different recipients, with each representing a
different role, then you are right. But if you have one address for several
people then it is somewhat obvious, that each person is the representative of a
role that only needs to acknowledge the receival of the mail _once_.
Believe me: If every (currently 3) people that read the mail would acknowledge
that our customer would sureley not feel this funny.

> MUAs that understood the receipt request thing wouldn't they all
> acknowledge?  If not then it's an even more un-useful facility than

No, they don't, because they ask the recipient in *every* case. That is like
the postman that asks you to confirm the sending of a letter. Its only
different in that he does not deliver the mail if you don't confirm the sending
of a letter.

Regards,
Patrick

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Chris G]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 12:58:52PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Joseph wrote:
> > 8.12: How to send an auto-reply back when someone posts?
> 
> thanks for that hint, but actually a auto-reply is not appropriate. I need
> something to actually confirm, because someone might already have sent it out.
> In another part of the thread I were pointed out to some mutt docs with 
> sending
> files, so eventually that and a macro would be a solution. I will check this
> out, as long as it is not sure if the MDN patch will every make it into mutt.
> 
I don't follow this "because someone might already have sent it out"
bit.

Surely if a mail is sent to (say) ten recipients it's pretty useless
to know that it got to just one of them.  If all ten recipients had
MUAs that understood the receipt request thing wouldn't they all
acknowledge?  If not then it's an even more un-useful facility than
would at first appear.

-- 
Chris Green

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Joseph wrote:
> 8.12: How to send an auto-reply back when someone posts?

thanks for that hint, but actually a auto-reply is not appropriate. I need
something to actually confirm, because someone might already have sent it out.
In another part of the thread I were pointed out to some mutt docs with sending
files, so eventually that and a macro would be a solution. I will check this
out, as long as it is not sure if the MDN patch will every make it into mutt.

Regards,

Patrick

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:06:44PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Oh, come on, the "appropriate docs" would be the *mutt* documentation, 
> of course! Can we possibly ask a more vague or open-ended question?

Haha! If it would be so obvious I wouldn't have asked, hu? Take for granted
that I had a look at the documentation, but did not find the right part
to solve my problem.

> Check out the -H and -i flags that can be passed to mutt. They allow 
> you to make mutt send a specific file... or you can pipe a file into 
> mutt's stdin, and that should work as well (kinda like /bin/mail).

Look, _now_ you actually pointed me to something to nearer look at.

Regards,
Patrick

Re: How to send a return receipt

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:35:02PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Thus, any message that does not have an X-Disposition-Sent header is a 
> message that you haven't sent a response to, and messages that DO have 
> such a header won't trigger the macro.

That does not work (at least in my case) because the TO-address is (often)
forwarded to a group of people, where one might not send such a confirmation,
when another already did. So a question is probably the best way to go, because
the people in the group usually know if someone already sent the confirmation.

> I don't see what that missing functionality might be. Maybe I'm 
> missing something.

Well, see above. The ideas others and I had so far are all lacking something,
that the MDA functions gives.

Regards,
Patrick

Re: js TypeError: document.body has no properties!

[liupeng]

sorry, send error
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:30:47PM +0800, liupeng wrote:
> vimperator version: 0.5.2
> i want to use document.body in .vimperatorrc, load .vimperatorrc no error
> --
> xxx = function() {
> ...
> ...document.body...
> ...
> }
> --
> 
> :js xxx()
> display the error msg:
> "TypeError: document.body has no properties"
> 
> :js alert(document) 
> return "[object XULDocument]"
> :js alert(document.body)
> return "undefine"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

js TypeError: document.body has no properties!

[liupeng]

vimperator version: 0.5.2
i want to use document.body in .vimperatorrc, load .vimperatorrc no error
--
xxx = function() {
...
...document.body...
...
}
--

:js xxx()
display the error msg:
"TypeError: document.body has no properties"

:js alert(document) 
return "[object XULDocument]"
:js alert(document.body)
return "undefine"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature