Re: A mutt flea, or just me?: Last reply paragraph is not displayed

2008-06-20 Thread Erik Christiansen
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:52:19AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Come to think of it, how can such an email actually exist? When email 
> is transmitted via SMTP, it's *required* to be terminated by a 
> newline. If it isn't, there's no way to know that the message has 
> finished.

Ah, we can't fault mutt, then.

> So, if you're getting a message delivered to you that's missing a 
> terminating newline, that suggests to me that some part of your 
> message delivery service is snipping off the newline.

Yes, the fact that no-one else on that linux list muttered in their
beard about those emails has prompted me to make procmail pass through
an additional unfiltered copy of them. The only filter action shown by
the log is however:

procmail: Executing " formail -a"Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> 
$MAILDIR/luv-main"

The addition of a header shouldn't muck with the last line of the body.
(And doesn't on any of the tens of thousands of other emails that rule
has processed on that and other lists.)

Once another "problem" email comes in, the evidence for a local cause
should be available.

Many thanks for your help getting this far.

Erik


Re: ":source ~/.muttrc" command weirdly moves message around in

2008-06-20 Thread Kyle Wheeler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, June 20 at 01:19 AM, quoth Russell Hoover:
> I've never actually once ever had any matching I didn't want on
>
> <|cv|dm
>
> in the line
>
> folder-hook   '<|cv|dm''set index_format="%3C %Z %[%m/%d]  %-22.22F \ 
> %?l?%4l&%4c?   %s"'
>
> The "cv" and "dm" folders don't ever get mail sent directly to them.

Well, that's beside the point. The reason you haven't had any false 
positive matches is that none of your other folders have the strings 
cv or dm in their title. And if you can be assured that you never 
will, then it doesn't matter.

Of course, a false-positive match will only manifest itself as a 
slightly incorrect index_format; hardly a serious problem, of course.

~Kyle
- -- 
Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it.
  -- Heisenberg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkhbuD0ACgkQBkIOoMqOI14rYwCfbrit6d8PVi+DNFY4g1UQ5s6w
kpUAnjGGaZsU/7KNAsZblUCOcDqjf/WN
=mNxB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


Re: index_format setting to show yr

2008-06-20 Thread David Champion
> Is there any way to setup mutt (the date_format variable?) such that
> in the index view, the year is shown only if the year of the message
> is different from the current year? The default "%d"  shows only the
> "Month date".

You need the "date_conditional" patch to make date formats conditional
upon relative date offsets, but even so you can only say "in the last 6
months" or the like -- not "in the current year".

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago


Re: index_format setting to show yr

2008-06-20 Thread Michael Kjorling
On 20 Jun 2008 12:42 -0500, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Champion):
> You need the "date_conditional" patch to make date formats conditional
> upon relative date offsets, but even so you can only say "in the last 6
> months" or the like -- not "in the current year".

I haven't looked at this particular patch and the functionality it
offers, but couldn't one come pretty close with a combination of that
and muttrc GNU date shell/backtick expansions?

Granted, it would be something of a kludge, but I don't see why it
couldn't be made to work. (date's +%-j format might come in handy.)

-- 
Michael Kjörling .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. http://michael.kjorling.se
* . No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings . *
* ENCRYPTED email preferred -- OpenPGP key ID: 0x 758F8749 BDE9ADA6 *
* ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML mail, proprietary attachments *



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were

2008-06-20 Thread Russell Hoover

A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were
occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was
apparently some sort of alternative address for the list:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list?
If it is not, I'd like to remove the following from my .procmailrc:

:0
* ^Delivered-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$HOME/Mail/m/

which of course is a recipe for putting any mail sent to that address into
my mutt-users-list folder.


-- 
 // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //



gbnet address still used for mutt-users list?

2008-06-20 Thread Russell Hoover
A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were
occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was
apparently some sort of alternative address for the list:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list?
If it is not, I'd like to remove the following from my .procmailrc:

:0
* ^Delivered-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$HOME/Mail/m/

which of course is a recipe for putting any mail sent to that address into
my mutt-users-list folder.

-- 
 // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //



Re: A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from

2008-06-20 Thread Sahil Tandon
Russell Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> A few years ago messages to the mutt-users list (from Germany?) were
> occasionally ending up in my inbox because they had been sent to what was
> apparently some sort of alternative address for the list:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Is anyone aware if this address is still in any way active for the list?

It is no longer active.  Users who send email to that address are asked, via 
a bounce, to direct email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Re: gbnet

2008-06-20 Thread Russell Hoover
On Sat 06/21/08 at 12:37 AM -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It is no longer active.  Users who send email to that address are asked,
> via a bounce, to direct email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Thank you muchly, sorry for the dupe.

-- 
 // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //



clearsign not working

2008-06-20 Thread Chris Lemire
Hello, I'd like to have gpg with --clearsign working and the text to be
in the message, not as an attachment. I tried all of these before
sending an email, i for inline, c for clearsign, and s for sign. s does
sign the message, but it puts the signature in an attachment. The others
do nothing. I copied /usr/share/doc/mutt-1.5.18/gpg.rc and am using it
in my mutt configuration. 

-- 
Christopher Lemire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fedora 64 bit Linux Raid Level 1