Re: line editor keybindings
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Marco Dickert wrote: > On 2018-03-13 20:50:20, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > On 13.03.18 10:09, andreas.muel...@biologie.uni-osnabrueck.de wrote: > > > can I switch the editor key bindings to the vi style ? > > There is better than that - you can use vim as the mutt editor, with > > this line in ~/.muttrc: > > > > set editor=vim > > You also may want to use a mutt-dedicated vim configuration, like I do: > > > set editor="/usr/bin/vim -c ~/.mutt/vimrc" > As an alternative: au BufRead,BufNewFile /home/flo/tmp/mutt-* set noai tw=72 ft=mail spell Obviously you need to change you path for your setup. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: utf-8 characters not shown
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 03:00:10AM -0400, Grady Martin wrote: > On 2016年04月27日 12時04分, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >I am using ROXTerm - And it shows correctly in vim so i know its in > >the font and the utf-8 console setup is correct. But viewing the mail > >in mutt the signature does not show a Cat and Mice, not even a blank > >box - but it simple weeds out the character ... > > Have you tried adding an entry for text/plain to ~/.mailcap? I would > try piping output through a number of utilities, cat and mou... er, > nkf, for example. > > On my system, I pipe text/plain through nkf and see "glyph not found" > characters as your cat and mouse (which is correct). The point is that i HAVE the Glyph in my Font - I can right now see it while writing the mail ... When i look at the very same mail in the sent folder the chars simply disappear - its not that i see the typical box with the unicode code point in it - is simply not there ... So there must be some code somewhere which weeds out those characters. I dug into libc's iswprint as i thought on linux those are available so mbyte.c will not be used. I am little puzzled on why these characters dont show up. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: utf-8 characters not shown
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:07:48PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:08:23AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away > > Looking at your sig in mutt in urxvt, and in vim in urxvt, I get > outlined boxes - that usually means I do not have a suitable font (I > tell urxvt to only use a small selection of monospace TTF or OTF > fonts). > > When I paste it into lowriter, I see a black cat and a white mouse. > > Without knowing your terminal, or how it is configured, I have to > assume that you used vim in X (vim in a term, or gvim ? The same > sort of term as you use for mutt ?) > > Meanwhile, as it says at https://www.emojibase.com/emoji/1f408/cat > > "Why does this emoji show up as a blank box (ꪪ) or an X? > > Not all emojis are supported by every device. If you are trying > to view an emoji your device doesn't support, you will see a blank > white box or similar symbol (ꪪ) to represent a character your device > doesn't understand. " I am using ROXTerm - And it shows correctly in vim so i know its in the font and the utf-8 console setup is correct. But viewing the mail in mutt the signature does not show a Cat and Mice, not even a blank box - but it simple weeds out the character ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: Digital signature
utf-8 characters not shown
Hi, i found the below utf-8 string in perl6 examples and thought that it would be a good test in a signature - I immediatly found my own mutt wouldnt display it. I see it correctly in vim editing the mail. Locale is UTF-8, everythings fine. I send the email and find the utf8 characters in the mail display to be removed. I am currently puzzled to why and where this happens. As i dont see garbage characters my impression is that the encoding is correct but some tool in the processing path removes the characters for beeing malicious or not in the display font or whatever. I do see the correct output with k9 mail on android though ... I checked that mutt correctly detects utf-8 locales. This happens with mutt 1.5.24-1 Debian/Jessie and 1.5.20-9+squeeze4 on Debian/Squeeze. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Handling of ";" in To: with group nameing
Hi, RFC2822 defines a possibility to put group names in To/Cc etc ... Format is described in RFC2828 Section 3.4 Addesss Specification " When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used. The group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of recipients. This is done by giving a display name for the group, followed by a colon, followed by a comma separated list of any number of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon. Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually providing the individual mailbox address for each of those recipients. " Request Tracker AKA RT uses this for communicating an empty group which looks like this and a BCC + Reply-To:: To: undisclosed-recipients:; Which is perfectly valid. The Problem is that when i press reply-group i get the Reply-To: address in the To and the ";" in CC. IMHO this is mishandling of addresses in mutt. I am using 1.5.24 Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
tweak subject with regex before display
Hi, Our companys "virus" check adds really annoying "*** unchecked ***" to every encrypted mails subject. Is there a way to suppress certain parts of a subject before displaying in the folder view? To my mind comes also mailinglist tags to suppress. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Why sign every message? (was Re: Sending attachments without crypt_autosign
Hi, On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote: I have a couple of comments about this: - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the bloat of a signature. Beyond this I find it ironic that people sign e-mail with a private key where its public key isn't found on a standard PGP/GPG keyserver like pgp.mit.edu or kerckhoffs.surfnet.nl. The point is - if you have no policy what to sign anyone could make up a message of yours and claim it wasnt signed. I can claim i have not sent a single unsigned message since '98 or something, be it private or work. Signing a mail might be a good hint for HAM detection but thats going to far. - If one is concerned enough about allowing others to verify the integrity of a message shouldn't this concern also extend to attachments which are a classic attack vector? I my wet dreams i' encrypting every single message. But mutt is not very helpful in this. Yes - it can encrypt but i'd like mutt to decide automatically when it's capable of encrypting the mail (remember multiple To:, Cc:, Bcc). It would be okay to encrypt a mail if i have a key for all recipients. If not a nice way would be if mutt splits the mail into an encrypted one for all recipients i have a key for, and an unencrypted one for all i have no key. In times where all countrys try to get hold of your communication data it is best to try to encrypt all your communication - be it in transit or stored. Its all there: Encrypted filesystems be it truecrypt or dm-crypt, in transit e.h. ssh, smtp with STARTTLS, imaps and gnupg for your mails. Signing a mail is a sign of - i'd like to get all mails encrypted - this is the key i am using. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
People want additional direct mail Was: People that CC mailing lists
Hola, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:51:54AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: But dumbing things down also causes problems. People should learn some social graces. Email is one of the basic forms of communication in our new electronic world. I think this facade does them no favors. But mostly because it means that: 1. I will get a copy without the mailing list List-* headers. + list-reply own't work reliably. + Mail filing won't work reliably. Just to make it clear - I am one of those who like to get a direct reply _additionally_ to the list mail. I check lists sometimes only every couple of days or weeks, once i start to interact with a thread i'd like to get replys immediately into my inbox to make shure i can keep the thread going instead of sending a reply days to weeks later. And blaming people sending you a direct mail which you are incapable of replying to (Remember - The header still contains the list address) is like blaming mutt it cant decode ms-tnef natively ... 2. If my site rejects their direct reply, such as it coming from a dynamic IP address range, then I won't ever get either message. The mailing list has no way to know that I did not get a direct reply. The mailing list may have whitelisted them however. I would normally receive all mailing list messages because I will have whitelisted the mailing list. Thats a SMTP/Mailserver issue which is completely offtopic. I dream of a world where MUAs did The Right Thing. Like mutt! :-) Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
gpg integration
Hi, i am a long time mutt and gpg user but still the gpg integration is kind of lacking. - I'd like to define recipients including their gpg key id to use. - Better - Mutt/Procmail could help by looking out for signed mails which tell the recipient has a mail setup which is gpg enabled - On sending email mutt automatically checks if the recipients are _all_ gpg enabled and encrypts automatically with all necessary keys if possible. Today i have some rules in the config which lists individual recipients like this: send-hook '~t e...@ma.il' set pgp_autoencrypt pgp-hook e@ma\.il DEADBEEF send-hook majordomo@ unset pgp_autosign send-hook listserv@ unset pgp_autosign send-hook listar@ unset pgp_autosign The Problem is that when sending mail to multiple recipients it still encrypts with this keyid ... Does anyone have a solution for this? It must be possible to get more mails signed and encrypted. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
Re: gpg integration
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:43:28AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: Incoming from Florian Lohoff: i am a long time mutt and gpg user but still the gpg integration is kind of lacking. So says you. :-) - I'd like to define recipients including their gpg key id to use. That makes no sense to me. If you're sending to multiple recipients, which key is common to them all? You'd need to send a separate message to each of them signed with their specific key. You dont need a common key - The real cipher for the plain mail is a symmetric one which gets attached to the mail encrypted with the gpg keys. Typically with a single recipient the key is attached at least twice - Once encrypted with the real recipient, and once encrypted with your own key. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to read the mails put into your sent folder anymore. There is no limit on the number of recipients that i am aware of, there is a limit which might be sensible to use though as the mail would then contain the symmetric key for every recipient which in my case adds ~500byte per recipient (As for an AES symmetric key and a 4096 bit RSA key). Please try: echo This is my content test gpg -r Bob -r Alice -e test You will get a test.gpg which well be readable by Bob and Alices key. mutt supports this today - you can add multiple recipients and say p b or at least p e and it'll ask for all recipient keys. I'd like to preset this and let mutt automatically detect whether all recipients are actually gpg enabled and only then encrypt and sign (sign only otherwise) I think you'd be better off _signing_ the mail with your key. You don't need to involve their keys at all for that. Aeh!?! I am talking about encrypting large parts of my communication e.g. certain recipients by default, always if all recipients do have a key. And yes - _all_ my mails are signed for more than 10 Years - thats not the problem. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature
