Re: return reciepts
Сбт, 03 Июл 2010, Rado S писал(а): > Wasted effort compared to an editor macro to add some line like > "please acknowledge receipt and respond ASAP". > If you just want to reverse the default, add such line to your > $signature, and delete it when not desired. IMO the key to get response is politeness, putting that line in $signature is not enough and some (including me) configure mua to hide signature when reading emails. A better chance of getting receipt would be writing inside email body, such as "John, it is very important for me to know that you had read this email. Your help to send me an acknowledge receipt will be highly appreciated." This would make recipient feel a real person or a friend rather than a machine making that request. I think OP can go on writing his patch to automate sending r-r but I doubt that will increase his chance of getting receipts other than annoying more recipients. -- regards, GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
Re: return reciepts
Ok, some more bashing... ;)
=- lee wrote on Fri 2.Jul'10 at 16:39:53 +0200 -=
> > > Noone using return reciepts?
> >
> > No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail.
>
> That's awfully annoying and too easy to forget.
No, automatic return-receipts are.
If you don't have the discipline and respect to use requests wisely,
why do you expect such responses from your recipients?
If something is important to you, tell me, and I'll respond if I
care enough.
Why would you want to automatically remind me of something that is
_not_ important to you?
Your original request just sounds like reversing the default from
"mostly no r-r, with manual exceptions" to "mosty _DO_ r-r, with
manual exceptions", it actually requires you still to make a manual
choice...
> It's a common feature in many MUAs, so mutt could as well support
> it --- or there could already be a solution.
You've been given technical details elsewhere.
I once thought it would make things easier for me and worked with
it myself, until I realized it didn't improve anything really, just
added more overhead for the sender creating and the recipient
dealing with it.
Wasted effort compared to an editor macro to add some line like
"please acknowledge receipt and respond ASAP".
If you just want to reverse the default, add such line to your
$signature, and delete it when not desired.
> As to comments about the requests being ignored and therefore
> pointless: Sorry, but these comments are themselves pointless.
> {...}
> Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has
> use for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them
> manually.
Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:36:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: >On 2010-07-02, rog...@sdf.org wrote: >> But to step aside from paranoia, it could be considered a "politeness >> feature" as >> it would tell a friend or significant other that you did receive their email. > >That's what the "r" key does. ;) ... LOL -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:40:45PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote: > > in discoursing from the armchair without actually trying to implement it, > there are very quite likely difficulties I'm missing here. See, it's not all that easy :) So before spending a lot of time to figure it out, I thought it a good idea to see if there's already a solution available. > Anyway, personally, I would set $edit-headers and implement this in the > editor rather than in mutt. I hear vim is reasonably scriptable these > days, but I find Lisp to be a more elegant language... ;-) That would be a good approach if I could program emacs. Unfortunately, I'm finding Lisp anything else than elegant --- rather totally unreadable and not at all understandable. > But if you prefer to do your coding in C, that's great too. It would only be the easiest way for me. > I just thought you might want to avoid having to hack the mutt > source code, Yes, that's something I want to avoid. > Good luck! Thanks!
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:23:23PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2010-07-02, lee wrote: > > > Having that said, it comes to mind that more users of mutt might make > > use of return reciepts if there was well designed support for them > > Doubit it. Well designed support for evil is still evil. > > 1/2 :) There's nothing evil about return reciepts. > > ... One way to address privacy concerns could be, for example, to > > queue the reciepts one wants to send and then send them all at once > > automatically, perhaps once or twice a day at fixed times. Perhaps > > that's a poor idea, I don't know. > > It's the actual sending of receipts that's a problem. I don't see how > queueing them up helps. Then don't send them if you don't want to. Queueing them could be do done for not to disclose when you handled the message.
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * lee [07-02-10 13:16]: > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote: > > > > > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may > > > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's > > > my_hdr command. > > > > That puts the header into every outgoing email, and ppl on mailing > > lists will complain about it. > > No, it puts the header in the messages *you* put it in. You do have > control of your email client! > > > > As for automatically sending a read receipt when you open a mail in mutt, > > > I imagine it should be possible to cook something up using message-hooks > > > and a little scripting. > > > > If you can do what I described in my OP with a little scripting, > > that's great for you, but I don't see how to do it. I'd have to write > > a program in C for it and somehow make it work with mutt --- and > > preferably make it so that it can be used with other MUAs as well. I > > don't know of any MUA that deals with return reciepts in the way > > described in my OP. > > So, what you *really* want is for someone to code/script it for you. > The offer of renumeration will more than likely provide you with > candidates. Can you read at all?
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:13:02PM +0200, lee wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote: > > > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may > > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's > > my_hdr command. > > That puts the header into every outgoing email, and ppl on mailing > lists will complain about it. I know perfectly well what my_hdr does. You ought to know perfectly well that mutt has plenty of facilities (send-hook, send2-hook, reply-hook...) for selectively setting my_hdr based on the recipient. $edit-headers plus a decent text editor provide even more possibilities. > > So, with a little effort, what you want can probably already be done > > using standard mutt features (plus maybe some external tools for > > automatically sending receipts). > > Ok, how so? Refer to to my OP for a more detailed description of how > it's supposed to work ... I was thinking more of the traditional read receipt behaviour when I wrote that, but I'll bite. Referring to your OP: > how do I make it so that reciepts are requested based on, for example, > recipients? Use send-hooks (or send2-hook, or reply-hook -- I always forget the details of which does what, and have to look it up in the manual) to set my_hdr based on the recipient. > The idea is something like mutt asking me if I want to request a > reciept when sending a message to a combination of recipients not yet > recognized by mutt. It then would remember my decision and add that > particular combination of recipients to some list for later reference > as to what decision I have made. Next time when sending messages to > that same combination of recipients, mutt would automatically either > request a reciept or not, depending on my decision once made --- > unless I explicitly instruct mutt otherwise when sending a message. This is obviously trickier. You could try setting $editor to a script that prompts you about send receipts, and writes a new send-hook based on your choice to a mutt config file. You'd then need to make mutt re-source the modified config file, e.g. by replacing the binding with a macro that calls both and . Just an idea, though. I've done things somewhat like this in mutt, for completely different purposes. But in discoursing from the armchair without actually trying to implement it, there are very quite likely difficulties I'm missing here. Anyway, personally, I would set $edit-headers and implement this in the editor rather than in mutt. I hear vim is reasonably scriptable these days, but I find Lisp to be a more elegant language... ;-) But if you prefer to do your coding in C, that's great too. I just thought you might want to avoid having to hack the mutt source code, as that always takes much more time. (And carries a maintenance burden every time a new version of mutt is released, as I suspect your chances of getting a send-receipt implementation into vanilla mutt are very small indeed...thankfully :) Since it's not a feature I ever want to see in mutt, I'm afraid that exhausts my interest in thinking about how to implement it. Good luck! Toby -- Dr T. S. Cubitt Quantum Information Theory group Department of Mathematics University of Bristol United Kingdom email: ts...@cantab.net web: www.dr-qubit.org
Re: return reciepts
On 2010-07-02, lee wrote: > Having that said, it comes to mind that more users of mutt might make > use of return reciepts if there was well designed support for them Doubit it. Well designed support for evil is still evil. 1/2 :) > ... One way to address privacy concerns could be, for example, to > queue the reciepts one wants to send and then send them all at once > automatically, perhaps once or twice a day at fixed times. Perhaps > that's a poor idea, I don't know. It's the actual sending of receipts that's a problem. I don't see how queueing them up helps. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I have a TINY BOWL in at my HEAD gmail.com
Re: return reciepts
* lee [07-02-10 13:16]: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote: > > > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may > > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's > > my_hdr command. > > That puts the header into every outgoing email, and ppl on mailing > lists will complain about it. No, it puts the header in the messages *you* put it in. You do have control of your email client! > > As for automatically sending a read receipt when you open a mail in mutt, > > I imagine it should be possible to cook something up using message-hooks > > and a little scripting. > > If you can do what I described in my OP with a little scripting, > that's great for you, but I don't see how to do it. I'd have to write > a program in C for it and somehow make it work with mutt --- and > preferably make it so that it can be used with other MUAs as well. I > don't know of any MUA that deals with return reciepts in the way > described in my OP. So, what you *really* want is for someone to code/script it for you. The offer of renumeration will more than likely provide you with candidates. -- 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
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:11:27PM -0500, David Champion wrote: > * On 28 Jun 2010, lee wrote: > > Hi, > > > > how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header > > You could try Werner Koch's rfc2298 MDN patch, but afaik it has not been > updated in years and probably needs some love. > > http://intevation.de/roundup/aegypten/file34/mutt-patch-1.5.6cvs.g10.mdn.1.asc Thanks, that could be very useful :) However, it makes me think again that something to handle return reciepts that works (mostly) independantly of mutt might be a better approach. Patching a recent mutt version with a patch that's 7 years old and like 14 versions back could turn out to be a little difficult ...
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote: > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's > my_hdr command. That puts the header into every outgoing email, and ppl on mailing lists will complain about it. > As for automatically sending a read receipt when you open a mail in mutt, > I imagine it should be possible to cook something up using message-hooks > and a little scripting. If you can do what I described in my OP with a little scripting, that's great for you, but I don't see how to do it. I'd have to write a program in C for it and somehow make it work with mutt --- and preferably make it so that it can be used with other MUAs as well. I don't know of any MUA that deals with return reciepts in the way described in my OP. > So, with a little effort, what you want can probably already be done > using standard mutt features (plus maybe some external tools for > automatically sending receipts). Ok, how so? Refer to to my OP for a more detailed description of how it's supposed to work ... > > As to comments about the requests being ignored and therefore > > pointless: Sorry, but these comments are themselves pointless. > > No, the comments were not pointless. I'm aware of the issues involved with return reciepts but still have use for them. It's not my intention at all to debate the usefulness or privacy concerns of return reciepts in general or in particular. Such a debate wouldn't take me any closer to a solution. I'd find it much more interesting to talk about how a good support for return reciepts should be designed. This is not to say these points aren't valid. I'm not sending return reciepts, either, but that's because there isn't good support for them: None in mutt, apparently, and I've seen only MUAs that offered only to either ask if I want to send a reciept or always send one or don't send any at all. None of these three options is sufficient. If there's a MUA that can do better, I'd be curious to hear about it. And why shouldn't mutt be the MUA that can do better in that than others? Having that said, it comes to mind that more users of mutt might make use of return reciepts if there was well designed support for them ... One way to address privacy concerns could be, for example, to queue the reciepts one wants to send and then send them all at once automatically, perhaps once or twice a day at fixed times. Perhaps that's a poor idea, I don't know.
Re: return reciepts
* On 28 Jun 2010, lee wrote: > Hi, > > how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header > lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that > reciepts are requested based on, for example, recipients? You could try Werner Koch's rfc2298 MDN patch, but afaik it has not been updated in years and probably needs some love. http://intevation.de/roundup/aegypten/file34/mutt-patch-1.5.6cvs.g10.mdn.1.asc -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2010/5/28/spring-sprout
Re: return reciepts
On 2010-07-02, rog...@sdf.org wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote: >>On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote: >> ... snip ... >>Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use >>for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manually. > > Return receipts could likely be called a "corporate feature" or a "feature for > the Wife". > > But to step aside from paranoia, it could be considered a "politeness > feature" as > it would tell a friend or significant other that you did receive their email. That's what the "r" key does. ;) -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Hand me a pair of at leather pants and a CASIO gmail.comkeyboard -- I'm living for today!
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > > =- lee wrote on Thu 1.Jul'10 at 18:08:43 +0200 -= > > > > > Noone using return reciepts? > > > > No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail. > > That's awfully annoying and too easy to forget. It's a common feature > in many MUAs, so mutt could as well support it --- or there could > already be a solution. > > If there isn't, I might go ahead and write something for the > purpose. But I don't want to re-invent the wheel unnecessarily. If what you're talking about is the mechanism described in RFC 2298, then a cursory glance indicates that read receipts are requested by setting the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's my_hdr command. As for automatically sending a read receipt when you open a mail in mutt, I imagine it should be possible to cook something up using message-hooks and a little scripting. So, with a little effort, what you want can probably already be done using standard mutt features (plus maybe some external tools for automatically sending receipts). If you're talking about server delivery receipt requests, I believe most servers simply ignore these anyway. (Servers are almost always configured to send failure reports, so the lack of a failure report indicates successful delivery to the recipient's mailbox.) > As to comments about the requests being ignored and therefore > pointless: Sorry, but these comments are themselves pointless. No, the comments were not pointless. Read receipts by definition have to be implemented in the MUA in order to work at all. You cannot force your recipients to use an MUA that implements them. Even if the MUA does implement read receipts, you cannot force your recipients to choose to send them. (Even RFC 2298 takes the unusual step of strongly recommending that MUAs make sending of read receipts optional, and AFAIK this is indeed the case in all MUAs that implement them.) Read receipts are therefore inherently unreliable. The fact that you haven't received one tells you nothing about whether your email has been read or not. If you do receive one, it does at least tell you that the recipient has opened the email. Whether they've actually read it is another question entirely. In many mail clients, simply scrolling through the message in a mailbox will mark it as read and trigger sending the receipt. So it's debatable whether read receipts are more or less useful than simply asking the recipient to reply to let you know they've read your message. At least that way, if you do receive a reply, you can be sure they've actually read what you've written. > It's a feature useful to me, and lacking better alternatives, I want to > make use of it. A number of people suggested a perfectly reasonable alternative: ask the recipient to acknowledge that they've read your message. This is all that a read receipt does, in any case. It doesn't in any way *compel* them to acknowledge that they've read it. And a polite request in your message has the advantage of working irrespective of which MUA your recipient is using, as well as providing you with a much more useful and reliable indication about whether the recipient has actually read your message. > Unfortunately, mutt doesn't have this feature, so I'm asking what's > available before putting my time into creating support for it myself. > > Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use > for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manually. Read receipts raise troubling privacy concerns (the RFC acknowledges this explicitly), and the kind of technically-savvy people who use mutt tend to care deeply about privacy. It's not at all surprising to me that you can't find any mutt users that want to use them. I always make sure I disable them when forced to use a mail client that implements them. Toby -- Dr T. S. Cubitt Quantum Information Theory group Department of Mathematics University of Bristol United Kingdom email: ts...@cantab.net web: www.dr-qubit.org
Re: return reciepts
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote: >On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > ... snip ... >Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use >for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manually. Return receipts could likely be called a "corporate feature" or a "feature for the Wife". But to step aside from paranoia, it could be considered a "politeness feature" as it would tell a friend or significant other that you did receive their email. On the side of politics, return receipts mention nothing concerning that the person even read or noticed your sent email. Much less, comprehension is another weak spot. It'd be great if we could program human brains to respond, "Yes I understand" after sending them instructions. But all I keep getting is this "glazed over look" and ... "Who's that gurl" response. :-/ The first scenarios, could likely be easily scripted into mailfilter or elsewhere. As far as coding it into Mutt, would people use it -- and if so, how many would turn it off if it were set. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: return reciepts
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > =- lee wrote on Thu 1.Jul'10 at 18:08:43 +0200 -= > > > Noone using return reciepts? > > No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail. That's awfully annoying and too easy to forget. It's a common feature in many MUAs, so mutt could as well support it --- or there could already be a solution. If there isn't, I might go ahead and write something for the purpose. But I don't want to re-invent the wheel unnecessarily. As to comments about the requests being ignored and therefore pointless: Sorry, but these comments are themselves pointless. It's a feature useful to me, and lacking better alternatives, I want to make use of it. Unfortunately, mutt doesn't have this feature, so I'm asking what's available before putting my time into creating support for it myself. Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manually.
Re: What map is default for .maildir?
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:33:09PM -0800, rog...@sdf.org wrote: > > In another shell within GNU Screen, I successfully did a "stuff command" to > refresh the Mutt display using one of it's key bindings every 60 seconds: > > screen -X at Mutt stuff $'echo ' Not sure what you mean, Ctrl-l doesn't work for you? > >what to consider as mailboxes. That would require you to keep editing > >your ~/.muttrc to keep the list of mailboxes up to date. > > #mailboxes `echo ~/.maildir/.* ~/.maildir/*` > mailboxes `find ~/.maildir/ -type d -name cur -printf '%h '` Yep, you could use something like that --- but mutt-mb can do a little more than that :)
Re: Can't set alternates
Nicolas Sebrecht schrieb am 02.07.2010 um 09:26 (+0200): > > I've added this line in my muttrc file > > set alternates=...@email.address > > but got > > alternates : unknown variable > > (translated message) with mutt v1.5.18. Moving from "set alternates = "^(...|...|...)$" to a series of "alternates ..." commands is one of two things I had to change when upgrading Mutt/Cygwin from 1.4.2 (2006) to 1.5.20 (2009). The other one was "set check_mbox_size = yes". -- Michael Ludwig
Re: Can't set alternates
* Nicolas Sebrecht on Friday, July 02, 2010 at 11:13:09 +0200 > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Christian Ebert wrote: >> Since some time alternates has become a command: >> >> alternates ^...@email\\.address$ ^anot...@email\\.address$ >> >> See man(5) muttrc. >> >> You can use less strict patterns of course. > > Thank you very much, it did solve the problem. I refered to this page : > > http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html > > May I ask why "alternates" is still in the "6.3 Configuration variables" > chapter? Probably because it refers still to the "stable" release, really ancient, 1.4.2.3 I believe. c -- theatre - books - texts - movies Black Trash Productions at home: http://www.blacktrash.org/ Black Trash Productions on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/blacktrashproductions
Re: Can't set alternates
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Christian Ebert wrote: > > Since some time alternates has become a command: > > alternates ^...@email\\.address$ ^anot...@email\\.address$ > > See man(5) muttrc. > > You can use less strict patterns of course. Thank you very much, it did solve the problem. I refered to this page : http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html May I ask why "alternates" is still in the "6.3 Configuration variables" chapter? -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: Can't set alternates
* Nicolas Sebrecht on Friday, July 02, 2010 at 09:26:16 +0200 > I've added this line in my muttrc file > > set alternates=...@email.address > > but got > > alternates : unknown variable > > (translated message) with mutt v1.5.18. > > Any idea on what's going on? Since some time alternates has become a command: alternates ^...@email\\.address$ ^anot...@email\\.address$ See man(5) muttrc. You can use less strict patterns of course. c -- Die Wolke Wolfgang Eine Kindergeschichte mit Bildern. Von Michael Weber. Das Buch -->> http://www.blacktrash.org/baustellen/index.html#wolkewolfgang Online -->> http://www.blacktrash.org/wolkewolfgang/
Can't set alternates
Hi, I've added this line in my muttrc file set alternates=...@email.address but got alternates : unknown variable (translated message) with mutt v1.5.18. Any idea on what's going on? -- Nicolas Sebrecht
