Re: HTML markup in email [was: Please set your line wrap to a sane value]
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:15:49PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:44:17PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:43:12PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > > Same arguemnt as above. Also this is mostly not interesting > > > anymore. When you compare this to the amount of bandwidth consumed > > > by things like streaming video, it's a drop in the bucket. > > > > Streaming video is specifically requested. I rec a lot of HTML email I > > don't request. There is a big diference. > > So? For the purposes of deciding whether or not HTML provides useful > formatting in e-mail messages, this is neither relevant nor I agree, I was commenting on your assertion that streaming video uses more bandwidth than HTML email. > The vast majority of e-mail I receive at my various mail addresses is > e-mail I didn't request, HTML or not. Once again, what you're really > talking about is spammers sending web pages as e-mail messages, i.e. No I'm not. I'm talking about when a subscriber to a ML sends an HTML message to that ML then *every* subscriber gets a copy. > spam, which is an entirely separate issue. If you have a mailbox on > the internet, anyone can send you as much data as they feel like... True, and some ML are similar when you consider non-trimming and HTML messages. > Your argument is, almost literally, a case of killing the messenger. Not sure what you mean, but a) I don't believe in violence and b) The Internet *is* the messenger, and I certainly don't advocate that. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: Remove prefix from subject header in index view
On 16.12.12 12:20, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:00:25PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > On 15.12.12 17:03, Christian Brabandt wrote: > > That has the advantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only from the > > index, but also from the edit-headers in vim, when replying. > > It also has the disadvantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only > from the index, but from the message entirely. Sometimes knowing by > way of which list you received a particular message (especially in the > distant past) is useful. Here, procmail delivers list mail directly to a separate mailbox for each list, so no confusion can arise. Anyone choosing instead the high-entropy option of chucking all received mail into one disordered hopper has created a rod for his own back. Do not expect sympathy for poor choices. The separate list mailboxes are presented in (.muttrc specified) priority order by mutt, so if interruptions intervene, I've dealt with the preferred lists, rather than an unsorted soup. > Plus sometimes (e.g. if you're forwarding the message off list to a > group of people) your recipients will want or need that info... The list server puts it back on every post. Stop for a moment, and think of a new post. It will not have the [list-id] pollution. Recipients of list post lose nothing. If off-list, the recipient can hopefully deal with a reply to his own mail. > The procmail solution is a bad one IMO. Sometimes it's a question of perspective. Erik -- Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same. - George Bernard Shaw
Re: Retrieve POP mail automatically?
Dale wrote: > http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html > > Item 4.10 > > I think the item you want is the pop_checkinterval variable > > The default is 60 seconds Thanks I just tried that after I posted my previous response. It doesn't work either (but it sure looked like it should!)
Re: Retrieve POP mail automatically?
* Dale Raby [12-16-12 12:40]: [...] > You might wish to consider using IMAP instead. This protocol keeps the > message on the server where you can access it again from, say, the > computer at the public library. POP3 will also allow this, but it is > not the default behavior in most cases. Or an alternative to imap and/or retaining pop mail on server. I dl *all* mail to my local box and ssh from outside to an active screen/tmux session. This way I can keep all my mail in a manner I want and still see it from anywhere from any internet connected computer. And the persistent screen/tmux session retains my mutt session as I left it. My local tmux session provides me instant access to five local computers merely by accessing the session. And I carry a usb flash stick with cygwin that provides me an xterm screen on windowz boxes. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: HTML markup in email [was: Please set your line wrap to a sane value]
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:44:17PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:43:12PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > Same arguemnt as above. Also this is mostly not interesting > > anymore. When you compare this to the amount of bandwidth consumed > > by things like streaming video, it's a drop in the bucket. > > Streaming video is specifically requested. I rec a lot of HTML email I > don't request. There is a big diference. So? For the purposes of deciding whether or not HTML provides useful formatting in e-mail messages, this is neither relevant nor interesting. It also takes nothing away from my assertion that with better clients generating reasonable HTML, this is pretty much a non-issue, as the necessary bloat for reasonable formatting is generally negligible. The vast majority of e-mail I receive at my various mail addresses is e-mail I didn't request, HTML or not. Once again, what you're really talking about is spammers sending web pages as e-mail messages, i.e. spam, which is an entirely separate issue. If you have a mailbox on the internet, anyone can send you as much data as they feel like... regardless of whether HTML is a popular or useful format for e-mail. Your argument is, almost literally, a case of killing the messenger. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpaOrAibgiO5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remove prefix from subject header in index view
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:00:25PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 15.12.12 17:03, Christian Brabandt wrote: > That has the advantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only from the > index, but also from the edit-headers in vim, when replying. It also has the disadvantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only from the index, but from the message entirely. Sometimes knowing by way of which list you received a particular message (especially in the distant past) is useful. Plus sometimes (e.g. if you're forwarding the message off list to a group of people) your recipients will want or need that info... The procmail solution is a bad one IMO. If we all have this feature, you don't need to care if it's in the subject line; those who want it can see it and those who don't need not. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpzKGQaIo9oq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Remove prefix from subject header in index view
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:30:56AM -0600, David Champion wrote: > > In the end, the tags are just put back by the MLM anyway, so the only > thing this did for me (vs an MUA-only solution) was to save me from > looking at the tags in my editor. Now I just hide the tag in my index > view. Much cheaper in system resources, and really just as effective > for what matters. (It's also actually useful when I reply off-list to a > poster, or forward/reply to someone else entirely -- but nonetheless I > would never recommend using subject tags.) I've had some cases where my rewriting of subject lines ended up somehow screwing up the display. I agree that it's cleaner just to modify the display in the index. w
Re: Retrieve POP mail automatically?
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:37:29AM -0600, Dale Raby wrote: > On 12/16/2012 10:37 AM, John Long wrote: > > Is there any way to retrieve pop mail automatically in mutt itself rather > > than using fetchmail etc.? > > > > Thanks. > > > > /jl > > > The short answer is "yes". The long answer is, maybe, if your > particular Mutt is compiled with the POP support option. I compiled Mutt with POP and can fetch and send mail no problem. What I don't know how to do is make Mutt fetch the mail automatically. I tried set mail_check=600 thinking every ten minutes it would try to pull mail from the pop server. This doesn't seem to happen. I guess that setting has to do with Mutt checking the folders for new mail. Is there a way to get Mutt to fetch pop mail automatically at intervals?
Re: Retrieve POP mail automatically?
On 12/16/2012 10:37 AM, John Long wrote: > Is there any way to retrieve pop mail automatically in mutt itself rather > than using fetchmail etc.? > > Thanks. > > /jl > The short answer is "yes". The long answer is, maybe, if your particular Mutt is compiled with the POP support option. You will also have to have the proper entries in your .muttrc file. Google up "mutt, pop support". There are all kinds of websites out there that detail the setup. You might wish to consider using IMAP instead. This protocol keeps the message on the server where you can access it again from, say, the computer at the public library. POP3 will also allow this, but it is not the default behavior in most cases. Good luck in training your Mutt. It can be challenging, but is usually worth the effort, even if, as in my case, you don't always use it. Dale signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Retrieve POP mail automatically?
Is there any way to retrieve pop mail automatically in mutt itself rather than using fetchmail etc.? Thanks. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: Remove prefix from subject header in index view
* On 15 Dec 2012, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 15.12.12 17:03, Christian Brabandt wrote: > > Probably it is not yet in mutt, but might be included later. Many > > features from mutt started as separate patches (or are still flying > > around as patches) until they have been included into main mutt. > > Just tweaking the index view is only half a fix, IME. So some time ago I > removed the nuisance from the troublesome list, using procmail: I'm on a lot of lists that use the subject: tag. I used to do this in procmail; I had a rule that removed [tags] for any message with a '[' in the subject. But I wrote the mutt patch because after a couple years' use, I felt that a procmail solution was wasted effort. At times some of these lists would burst messages out -- for example, if my machine went offline for a while (ISP, system, whatever), then I might get several dozen such messages in short order. Dozens of procmails shelling out dozens of formails and dozens of seds made my system pretty unfriendly to interactive use. In the end, the tags are just put back by the MLM anyway, so the only thing this did for me (vs an MUA-only solution) was to save me from looking at the tags in my editor. Now I just hide the tag in my index view. Much cheaper in system resources, and really just as effective for what matters. (It's also actually useful when I reply off-list to a poster, or forward/reply to someone else entirely -- but nonetheless I would never recommend using subject tags.) I've reposted the subjectrx patch to mutt-dev for review. If nobody has unmitigable negative comments, I'll push it to HEAD. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
