Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I like Mutt's motto: All e-mail clients suck; mutt just sucks less.
And I used to believe it too, until I started trying to use GPG
regularly.  I switched from Pine to mutt specifically for its built-in
support for PGP/GPG.  But I found that either I don't understand how
to best make use of this support, or it really needs some work.  I'd
like to offer my opinions about how to make mutt REALLY suck less, and
at the same time ask for help about how to fix some of the problems.
Also note that I'm using "Mutt 1.3.22.1i (2001-08-30)" so I guess it's
possible that some of this stuff may have changed in some of the
recent updates.  But that's not the sense that I get...

Here's my current list of gripes:

 - forwarded messages not included in quoting

There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I want, so
that I can comment on what the original writer wrote.  Maybe a way
does exist, since it seems intuitive that people would want to do
this, but I couldn't find a way.  IIRC, Pine (for example) has a handy
option for this.

 - sigs not included in quoting

Occasionally, you run across a sig that's just damn cool, or otherwise
warrants comment.  I can find no way to make mutt include the sig in
e-mail, temporarily or otherwise.  I'm certain that Pine has a handy
option for this.

 - HTML mail

I hate HTML mail as much as anyone.  Honestly.  But the fact is, a lot
of people use it.  And sometimes, important people use it.  Yes, mutt
does have ways to display these messages, but they are inconvenient at
best.  And, AFAIK, mutt does not include a means of QUOTING these
messages, when one must reply to them.  This sucks.  I'll grant you
that I toss these messages out usually anyway, but I need to have the
option of dealing with them if I need to.

 - encrypting attachments

Often when one sends an encrypted e-mail, one wants to send
attachments too.  Sometimes you want the attachment encrypted, and
sometimes you don't (or actually, I ALWAYS do, but I can conceive of
reasons why one might not, or at least not care).  Mutt seems to do
the latter by default, and there doesn't seem to be any way to do the
former in mutt, other than to uuencode all the files manually, and
paste them into the message that you're typing.  This defeats the
whole point of having PGP support, IMO.

 - pgp userid identification

Despite the fact that I've composed an e-mail to a person whose e-mail
address matches exactly one of the userid's in my gpg key ring, and
despite the fact that gpg will select the correct key every time when
invoked seperately on the command line, mutt insists on prompting me
to choose between several keys with somewhat similar e-mail addresses
attached to them.  This is, IMO, really dumb.  If I've got only one
key that matches an e-mail address exactly, mutt should use that key
and never prompt me to choose between other keys that might be
similar.

For example, I have two keys in my key ring, one of which is for the
e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

When I send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'm always prompted
to choose between these two keys.  This makes NO sense.  If there's
one, and only one exact match, mutt should be smart enough to use it.

 - pgp hooks

The behavior of mutt wrt PGP hooks seems particularly brain dead.  I
attempted to solve the above problem by using a pgp hook to associate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a particular key id.  Now, instead of
prompting me to choose between keys, mutt prompts me TWICE to see if I
really, really want to use that key.  I wouldn't have created a pgp
hook if I didn't  Come on!  The pgp hook should eliminate the need
for prompting!  What's the point, if it's just going to ask you to
select the key anyway?

 - clearsigned and/or ascii-armored messages

Whether you guys like it or not, most of the rest of the world uses
clearsigning and ascii-armored plaintext messages.  Mutt falls down
here.  You apparently refuse to support this, which makes no sense
since the majority of the PGP-using world uses this form of message.
This has caused me and a few of my mutt convertees and people we
converse with no end of headaches.

The FAQ mentions using procmail to "convert" these kinds of e-mail,
but I have two problems with that:

1) It is not and should not be the job of my MDA to modify messages
which are in a format in common use so that my MUA can read them.  My
MUA should be able to handle all forms of e-mail that are in common
usage.  Or at the very least, those described by RFCs, which this IS.

2) THIS DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK.  There are cases where, IIRC, if the
e-mail has attachments, the procmail filters recommended make the
e-mail in question unreadable by mutt.

THIS IS NOT A WORKABLE SOLUTION.

Also, mutt will only *send* PGP-MIME messages.  However, there are
only a handful of clients that can properly handle PGP-MIME, w

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Will Yardley]

Derek D. Martin wrote:

> There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
> quoted text.

why not just reply and then change the 'To' header.
you can delete the 'in-reply-to' if you're worried about messing up
headers.

that said, it would be cool if there were 'forward_inline' and
'forward_quoted' options or something.

>  - sigs not included in quoting

i've always seen sigs included in quoting.

for instance, yours is:

 > -
 > I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
 > GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
 > Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
 > Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
 
> I hate HTML mail as much as anyone.  Honestly.  But the fact is, a lot
> of people use it.  And sometimes, important people use it.  Yes, mutt
> does have ways to display these messages, but they are inconvenient at
> best.  And, AFAIK, mutt does not include a means of QUOTING these
> messages, when one must reply to them.  This sucks.

i have no problem quoting them.  i have:

text/html;  w3m -dump %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput
in my .mailcap

and:
# view annoying html mail inline
auto_view text/html
# if plain text and html prefer plain text
alternative_order text/plain text/enriched text/html

in my .muttrc

is it really necessary to complain so much?  perhaps it's best to first
nicely ask how to do something. this is more likely to elicit a positive
response.
 
>  - encrypting attachments
> 
> Often when one sends an encrypted e-mail, one wants to send
> attachments too.  Sometimes you want the attachment encrypted, and
> sometimes you don't (or actually, I ALWAYS do, but I can conceive of
> reasons why one might not, or at least not care).  Mutt seems to do
> the latter by default, and there doesn't seem to be any way to do the
> former in mutt, other than to uuencode all the files manually, and
> paste them into the message that you're typing.  This defeats the
> whole point of having PGP support, IMO.

mutt always encrypts attachments i'm 99% sure. 
i'm not sure if there's a way to NOT encrypt / sign attachments of a PGP
signed or encrypted message.

>  - clearsigned and/or ascii-armored messages
> 
> Whether you guys like it or not, most of the rest of the world uses
> clearsigning and ascii-armored plaintext messages.  Mutt falls down
> here.  You apparently refuse to support this, which makes no sense
> since the majority of the PGP-using world uses this form of message.
> This has caused me and a few of my mutt convertees and people we
> converse with no end of headaches.
[snip]
> Also, mutt will only *send* PGP-MIME messages.  However, there are
> only a handful of clients that can properly handle PGP-MIME, while
> virtually all off them (with the exception of mutt) handle
> clearsigning and ASCII-armored plaintext messages just fine.

you can use pgp_create_traditional.

however outhouse doesn't work well with the MIME type set to
application/pgp

my understanding is that this is deprecated anyway, so perhaps it's best
to change the default clearsign behavior to just plain text?

just an idea
 
> In my experience, trying to force people to do it the "right" way
> usually guarantees that no one will want to play nice with you, unless
> you're the guy with monopoly power

well there are reasons for this; namely you can only send in US/ascii if
you're using clear text signing / encryption.  it seems a bit
presumptious to assume that the whole world wants to send mail in
us/ascii.

it also makes signing / encryption of attachments impossible or
difficult.

> I'm aware of (and use) the patch to make mutt send
> "outlook-compatible" messages, since almost NO ONE I converse with on
> a regular basis can read PGP-MIME messages, but it still sends
> PGP-MIME messages when the message includes attachments, and doesn't
> seem to give me the option not to.  This sucks.

isn't this pretty much impossible (other than the method you mentioned
before of including uuencoded text in the message body)?  that was my
understanding anyway.

w

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Justin R. Miller]

Thus spake Will Yardley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> that said, it would be cool if there were 'forward_inline' and
> 'forward_quoted' options or something.

See $forward_quote :-)

-- 
Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
View my website at http://codesorcery.net
Please encrypt email using key 0xC9C40C31



msg22500/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Lars Hecking]

 
>  - clearsigned and/or ascii-armored messages
> 
> Whether you guys like it or not, most of the rest of the world uses
> clearsigning and ascii-armored plaintext messages.  Mutt falls down
> here.  You apparently refuse to support this, which makes no sense
> since the majority of the PGP-using world uses this form of message.
[...]

 Not true.

  6.3.121.  pgp_create_traditional

  Type: quadoption
  Default: no

  This option controls whether Mutt generates old-style PGP encrypted or
  signed messages under certain circumstances.

  Note that PGP/MIME will be used automatically for messages which have
  a character set different from us-ascii, or which consist of more than
  a single MIME part.

  Also note that using the old-style PGP message format is strongly
  deprecated.

 (I don't remember when this was introduced, though.)

 Secondly, mutt also supports checking of traditionally signed email
 (i.e. without conversion).

P  check-traditional-pgp  check for classic pgp

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

> >There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
> >quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I want, so
> >that I can comment on what the original writer wrote.  Maybe a way
> >does exist, since it seems intuitive that people would want to do
> >this, but I couldn't find a way.  IIRC, Pine (for example) has a handy
> >option for this.
> 
> The easiest way to do this is, of course, to just use reply. ;-)

Well, yes, except that I sometimes also use forward instead of reply,
so that signatures are not stripped from the message.  And sometimes I
don't want attribution/quote marks.  But often that does work...


> >- sigs not included in quoting
> 
> >Occasionally, you run across a sig that's just damn cool, or otherwise
> >warrants comment.  I can find no way to make mutt include the sig in
> >e-mail, temporarily or otherwise.  I'm certain that Pine has a handy
> >option for this.
> 
> I don't understand your question.  Mutt does not cut off .signatures.

Hmmm...  well, whenever I reply to a message, everything after
sigdashes is stripped from the message.  It's possible that my editor
is doing this (I use post-mode for emacs), and I'll look into that.

Whatever it is, it's pretty inconvenient at times, for example when
signing up for some lists.  The replies sent by some lists include the
authorization info AFTER sigdashes (including the mutt mailing lists)
which then get stripped out upon replying to the mail.  Failing to
notice the sigdashes means I need to quit out of composing the
message, and either use forward or cut and paste the auth command.

Yep, I'm lazy!  ;-)

> >I hate HTML mail as much as anyone.  Honestly.  But the fact is, a 
> >lot of people use it.  And sometimes, important people use it. 
> >Yes, mutt does have ways to display these messages, but they are 
> >inconvenient at best.  And, AFAIK, mutt does not include a means 
> >of QUOTING these messages, when one must reply to them.  This 
> >sucks.  I'll grant you that I toss these messages out usually 
> >anyway, but I need to have the option of dealing with them if I 
> >need to.
> 
> Add this line to your ~/.mailcap:
> 
>   text/html; lynx -underscore -force_html -dump %s; copiousoutput
> 
> And this one to your ~/.muttrc:
> 
>   auto_view text/html
> 
> That should be all that's necessary to automatically display (and 
> include in replies) HTML messages.

K, I'll try this, but I could swear I did this before and had some
sort of problem with it...


> >Whether you guys like it or not, most of the rest of the world 
> >uses clearsigning and ascii-armored plaintext messages.  Mutt 
> >falls down here.

[SNIP more of my ramblings...]

> Try Esc-P when displaying a message.

Ok... I was unfamiliar with this option/feature.  I guess you could
add another gripe: documentation.  The old version is well documented,
but the new one has none, as far as I could tell.  

Thanks

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8OfdudjdlQoHP510RAiepAJ93EQztxQRRIeUNP49bQhGpAxRQogCgtBbR
YuNtCc9b9FjSPYoFAQFWXbg=
=ZQVL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:40:30PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
> > quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I want, so
> > that I can comment on what the original writer wrote.  Maybe a way
> > does exist, since it seems intuitive that people would want to do
> > this, but I couldn't find a way.  IIRC, Pine (for example) has a handy
> > option for this.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  When I forward a message, it prompts me if
> I want to 'Forward MIME encapsulated'.  If I answer 'n', the text of the
> forwarded message appears in my editor.  It isn't quoted, if that's what
> you mean (it shows up between 'Forwarded message' indicators instead).

Ok, so I'm beginning to suspect that this, along with my .sig problem,
may actually be caused by post.el - a mode for emacs to edit mail.
I'm going to look into this.
 

[SNIP]
> text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -force_html %s; needsterminal
> text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -dump -force_html %s; copiousoutput
> 
> When I get HTML mail it automatically gets passed through lynx and
> displayed in Mutt's pager.  When I reply, the output of lynx is quoted
> in my reply.  The 'needsterminal' entry allows me to explicitly view
> HTML mail in lynx, which I sometimes want to do.

The need to do that never occured to me...  How do you choose between
them?


> Pine's internal handling of HTML mail is much better than Mutt's.

Agreed.

> > Often when one sends an encrypted e-mail, one wants to send
> > attachments too.  Sometimes you want the attachment encrypted, and
> > sometimes you don't (or actually, I ALWAYS do, but I can conceive of
> > reasons why one might not, or at least not care).  Mutt seems to do
> > the latter by default, and there doesn't seem to be any way to do the
> > former in mutt, other than to uuencode all the files manually, and
> > paste them into the message that you're typing.  This defeats the
> > whole point of having PGP support, IMO.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying here, either. 

Ok, I may be confused about this.  Some of these things were items I'd
jotted down a while back, meaning to ask about them some time ago, so
I'm going from memory.  I don't send encrypted mail with attachments
all that often, so it's been a while since I had to deal with this one
specifically.  Next time I run into whatever this problem was, I'll
ask again.  ;-)


-- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Will Yardley]

Derek D. Martin wrote:
> At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:40:30PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:

> > > There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message
> > > in quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I
> > > want, so that I can comment on what the original writer wrote.
> > > Maybe a way does exist, since it seems intuitive that people would
> > > want to do this, but I couldn't find a way.  IIRC, Pine (for
> > > example) has a handy option for this.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean.  When I forward a message, it prompts me
> > if I want to 'Forward MIME encapsulated'.  If I answer 'n', the text
> > of the forwarded message appears in my editor.  It isn't quoted, if
> > that's what you mean (it shows up between 'Forwarded message'
> > indicators instead).
> 
> Ok, so I'm beginning to suspect that this, along with my .sig problem,
> may actually be caused by post.el - a mode for emacs to edit mail.
> I'm going to look into this.

you might also look to 'mime_forward' ?? (ie into setting it to 'ask-no'
or 'ask-yes' rather than the default, whish is 'no').

i'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but i think it's
what mike was talking about.

w

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Jim Mock]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 at 13:40:30 -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> Here's my current list of gripes:
> 
>  - forwarded messages not included in quoting
> 
> There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
> quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I want, so
> that I can comment on what the original writer wrote.  Maybe a way
> does exist, since it seems intuitive that people would want to do
> this, but I couldn't find a way.  IIRC, Pine (for example) has a handy
> option for this.

set forward_quote=yes in your .muttrc

>  - sigs not included in quoting
> 
> Occasionally, you run across a sig that's just damn cool, or otherwise
> warrants comment.  I can find no way to make mutt include the sig in
> e-mail, temporarily or otherwise.  I'm certain that Pine has a handy
> option for this.

This is the default.  If you *don't* want the sigs, the easiest way to
not get them is to have your editor strip them at -- .

>  - HTML mail
> 
> I hate HTML mail as much as anyone.  Honestly.  But the fact is, a lot
> of people use it.  And sometimes, important people use it.  Yes, mutt
> does have ways to display these messages, but they are inconvenient at
> best.  And, AFAIK, mutt does not include a means of QUOTING these
> messages, when one must reply to them.  This sucks.  I'll grant you
> that I toss these messages out usually anyway, but I need to have the
> option of dealing with them if I need to.

text/html; w3m -T text/html %s; copiousoutput in your .mailcap

If I reply to an HTML message, mutt quotes it like it does for normal
text messages.

- jim

-- 
jim mock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://soupnazi.org/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Volker Moell]

Lars Hecking wrote:
>  
>  Secondly, mutt also supports checking of traditionally signed email
>  (i.e. without conversion).
> 
> P  check-traditional-pgp  check for classic pgp

Months ago there was a thread how to do this automatically.  But at that
time all tries didn't work; AFAIR there was a conceptual problem
(endless loops or so, I don't know exactly any more).  Well, to read one
single mail I can hit Esc-P, but when searching in a complete folder in
the message bodies this leads to a problem.

Has anyone developed a working muttrc line concerning this problem ? Or
is there a corresponding mutt variable in the meantime, I overlook?

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

"Amnesia used to be my favorite word, but then I forgot it."

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Justin R. Miller]

Thus spake Volker Moell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> Months ago there was a thread how to do this automatically.  But at
> that time all tries didn't work; AFAIR there was a conceptual problem
> (endless loops or so, I don't know exactly any more).  Well, to read
> one single mail I can hit Esc-P, but when searching in a complete
> folder in the message bodies this leads to a problem.
> 
> Has anyone developed a working muttrc line concerning this problem ?
> Or is there a corresponding mutt variable in the meantime, I overlook?

Yeah, I brought that up.  Never did figure out a good way to do it
without the loops...

-- 
Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
View my website at http://codesorcery.net
Please encrypt email using key 0xC9C40C31



msg22522/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[René Clerc]

* Derek D. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07-01-2002 20:59]:

| > text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -force_html %s; needsterminal
| > text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -dump -force_html %s; copiousoutput
| > 
| > When I get HTML mail it automatically gets passed through lynx and
| > displayed in Mutt's pager.  When I reply, the output of lynx is quoted
| > in my reply.  The 'needsterminal' entry allows me to explicitly view
| > HTML mail in lynx, which I sometimes want to do.
| 
| The need to do that never occured to me...  How do you choose between
| them?

When the message is displayed (and, of course, you have
"auto_view text/html" set, mutt pages the output of the dump version.

When you visit the text/html thing of the message using 'v'iew-attach,
it fires up an instance of lynx, and enables you to browse the
message, and, of course, follow external hyperlinks.

-- 
René Clerc  - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Hear about...
the fellow who got ten years for pumping Ethyl behind the station?



msg22525/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Samuel Padgett]

Derek D. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hmmm...  well, whenever I reply to a message, everything after
> sigdashes is stripped from the message.  It's possible that my editor
> is doing this (I use post-mode for emacs), and I'll look into that.

I'm pretty sure that post-mode does this.  You might want to try
a command like

M-x apropos-variable RET post.*sig RET

or somesuch to see what variable enables the behavior.

Sam

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Samuel Padgett hath spake thusly:
> Derek D. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Hmmm...  well, whenever I reply to a message, everything after
> > sigdashes is stripped from the message.  It's possible that my editor
> > is doing this (I use post-mode for emacs), and I'll look into that.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that post-mode does this.  You might want to try
> a command like

Well, that command didn't do much useful for me, but I was able to
determine the variable to change this behavior.  To turn it OFF, one
would stick this in the appropriate place in their .emacs file:

  '(post-kill-quoted-sig nil)

Easier still (at least if you have xemacs) to go to the customize
menu, and set it there (customize/emacs/applications/mail/post gets
you the menu for post mode).



- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8OiuhdjdlQoHP510RAjQsAJ9IHA5li1uun5ouXPLSDGc2vCV7OgCgkaFl
/DSy9mhv3bwXHidY13hfRX4=
=9rNm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Vincent Lefevre]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 14:40:36 -0500, mike ledoux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:40:30PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > Occasionally, you run across a sig that's just damn cool, or otherwise
> > warrants comment.  I can find no way to make mutt include the sig in
> > e-mail, temporarily or otherwise.  I'm certain that Pine has a handy
> > option for this.
> 
> Huh.  One of my complaints about Mutt (I'm still running 1.2.5, I won't
> trust my mail to software that the developers don't consider stable)
> is that it *insists* on quoting the .sig every time.  I wasn't able to
> make Mutt stop doing this, so I finally configured my editor to strip
> everything after '\n-- \n'.

Me too. Now, this isn't a problem for me as using the editor (emacs
in my case) to do that is a better solution since I can unstrip the
signature (with Ctrl-_ in my case) if need be.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:  - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Samuel Padgett]

Derek D. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Well, that command didn't do much useful for me,

Did you try running it after loading post-mode?

> To turn it OFF, one would stick this in the appropriate place in
> their .emacs file:
> 
>   '(post-kill-quoted-sig nil)

That line alone does not do anything useful (and looks
suspiciously like it's part of a larger `custom-set-variables'
declaration).  Maybe you mean

(setq post-kill-quoted-sig nil)

> Easier still (at least if you have xemacs) to go to the
> customize menu, and set it there

This will of course work ;-)

Sam

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thanks to everyone who have responded with helpful hints.  For those
keeping score:

At some point hitherto, Derek D. Martin hath spake thusly:
>  - forwarded messages not included in quoting

The mentioned variables seem to have solved this one.

>  - sigs not included in quoting

This turned out to be my custom emacs mode (post) which strips out the
signatures.  Turning this feature on or off is fairly easy from within
emacs, so that's cool.

>  - HTML mail

I still don't really like it, but it's a lot better than it was.  I've
got it working so it displays the text with lynx, and if I view the
html parts it pops up in a remote mozilla window.  This makes my life
a LOT easier than it was, but it still would be better if mutt had
better internal HTML handling.  But I like having the ability to
display it both in the e-mail pager, and to have it conveniently pop
up in a browser window.  That's cool.

Mike L, if you have tricks for figuring out WHICH mozilla window the
page will pop up in, I'd like to see that.  

>  - encrypting attachments

I seem to have been confused about what my problem actually was, but
the next time I run into it, I'll be sure to ask.  ;-)

>  - pgp userid identification
> 
> Despite the fact that I've composed an e-mail to a person whose e-mail
> address matches exactly one of the userid's in my gpg key ring, and
> despite the fact that gpg will select the correct key every time when
> invoked seperately on the command line, mutt insists on prompting me
> to choose between several keys with somewhat similar e-mail addresses
> attached to them. 

No one's addressed this so I'll assume there's currently no way to fix
it.  If this is intentional behavior,  I'm very curious as to the
rational.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I consider this broken.

And BTW, if you mistype your passphrase (assuming you're signing, as
well as encrypting), the aggravation is doubled every time you miss
it.  ;-)

>  - pgp hooks
> 
> attempted to solve the above problem by using a pgp hook to associate
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a particular key id.  Now, instead of
> prompting me to choose between keys, mutt prompts me TWICE to see if I
> really, really want to use that key.

Same as above for this one.


>  - clearsigned and/or ascii-armored messages

At least as far as my (very) limited test goes, P does seem to
deal with this acceptably.

> With these problems, IMO mutt does not suck less than other mailers;
> it just sucks differently.  If they were fixed, IMO, it really would
> suck a lot less.

Mutt sucks much less (for me) today!  =8^)  I'd still really really
like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also
really rather not have to hit P to have a traditional PGP message
work.

Thanks again.

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8OkMgdjdlQoHP510RAthiAKC6nD0K2ai9m2vSW6vE9Jht9nkB7wCgs1Iy
xhmBY42VtMCldEmTp2kqsrA=
=fqi+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Will Yardley]

Derek D. Martin wrote:
> 
> Mutt sucks much less (for me) today!  =8^)  I'd still really really
> like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also
> really rather not have to hit P to have a traditional PGP message
> work.

do you use procmail?

i use this to accomplish that (i know you or someone mentioned problems
with this; i personally haven't encountered any)

# autoview clearsigned PGP in mutt
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
* ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
x-action=encrypt"

:0 fBw
* ^-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
* ^-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
* ^-END PGP SIGNATURE-
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign"
}

i use Maildir; if you use mbox you'd probably need to add some
lockfiles.

w

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
> Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > 
> > Mutt sucks much less (for me) today!  =8^)  I'd still really really
> > like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also
> > really rather not have to hit P to have a traditional PGP message
> > work.
> 
> do you use procmail?

Yes.

> 
> i use this to accomplish that (i know you or someone mentioned problems
> with this; i personally haven't encountered any)

Yes, I've used this.  It doesn't always work.  I don't recall what the
problem was though.  I don't run into it often enough to have it fresh
in my mind, but I did run into it often enough for it to be painful.

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8OkfPdjdlQoHP510RAn+WAJ98yB9jpvbjV2DFnaNOUVhKWYM3egCfeKhd
AuhYPuBip6zzyYWw+IRSK+M=
=Nakl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly:
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 07:53:52PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone who have responded with helpful hints.  For those
> > keeping score:
> > 
> > >  - HTML mail
> [...]
> > Mike L, if you have tricks for figuring out WHICH mozilla window the
> > page will pop up in, I'd like to see that.  
> 
> I prefer to have it open a new window for each link, so I use:
> 
>   mozilla -remote openurl\("$1",new-window\) > /dev/null 2>&1 &

Yeah, that'd do it, but I'd rather just leave one up and have it use
the same one all the time.  No need to ENCOURAGE mozilla to leak
memory...  ;-)

> 
> > And BTW, if you mistype your passphrase (assuming you're signing, as
> > well as encrypting), the aggravation is doubled every time you miss
> > it.  ;-)
> 
> Yes, and with Mutt 1.2.5 and GPG 1.0.6, Mutt is smart enough to know that
> the signing failed, but not smart enough to not cache the bad passphrase
> (this applies on decrypt as well).  This is *very* frustrating.

Yeah, that sucks too.  Though I haven't looked at the code much (being
not really a programmer), it strikes me that ought to be something
that's fairly easy to fix.  Maybe I'll look at it, if no one else
bothers...

> > Mutt sucks much less (for me) today!  =8^)  I'd still really really
> > like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also
> > really rather not have to hit P to have a traditional PGP message
> > work.
> 
> If you want it, I'll give you a copy of my patch.  I've been using it
> for a couple of months since the last change I made and haven't had
> any problems so far.

Well, the question is, will it apply against 1.3.2x?  I began to have
some real problems using 1.2.5i with IMAP, which switching to 1.3
fixed.  Don't remember what they were though.  I'll shortly be
upgrading to the latest, in order to lose the security hole that's in
both mutt <= 1.2.5i and mutt <= 1.3.24(?).

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8OlJndjdlQoHP510RAldLAJ9pAk6q24QbBMlxP3KPKFF6cfqYyQCfd46w
Db2BU7uiRIpk4+pfhuW1rQk=
=2m7L
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Vincent Lefevre]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 21:04:10 -0500, mike ledoux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 12:27:29AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Me too. Now, this isn't a problem for me as using the editor (emacs
> > in my case) to do that is a better solution since I can unstrip the
> > signature (with Ctrl-_ in my case) if need be.
> 
> I disagree.  Using the editor to do this is the *wrong* solution, since
> it requires my editor to know it is editing mail.  I maintain that my
> editor shouldn't need to know that--text is text.

What I want to say is that both the mailer and the editor should
have an option to strip the signature. But when one has the choice,
choosing the editor to do the job is a better solution.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:  - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Philip Mak]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 08:59:04PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > > Mike L, if you have tricks for figuring out WHICH mozilla window the
> > > page will pop up in, I'd like to see that.  
> 
> Yeah, that'd do it, but I'd rather just leave one up and have it use
> the same one all the time.  No need to ENCOURAGE mozilla to leak
> memory...  ;-)

Can't you specify a target window name for the new link to open in? I
know that when you're writing HTML, you can do something like:



and if you put TARGET="windowname" for all your links, the links will
always open in the same window. Perhaps you can specify a TARGET from
the Mozilla command line?

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Dale Woolridge]

On  7-Jan-2002 19:53 Derek D. Martin wrote:
| 
| Mutt sucks much less (for me) today!  =8^)  I'd still really really
| like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also

Have a look at http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/ for a patch which will
probably address the issues you've raised.  It was created against
1.3.25, but it might work with 1.3.22.  I'd certainly like to verify
how far back in the 1.3.x branch it will work.

regards.
--
-Dale

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[René Clerc]

* Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-01-2002 03:36]:

| On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 21:04:10 -0500, mike ledoux wrote:
| > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 12:27:29AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
| > > Me too. Now, this isn't a problem for me as using the editor (emacs
| > > in my case) to do that is a better solution since I can unstrip the
| > > signature (with Ctrl-_ in my case) if need be.
| > 
| > I disagree.  Using the editor to do this is the *wrong* solution, since
| > it requires my editor to know it is editing mail.  I maintain that my
| > editor shouldn't need to know that--text is text.

I couldn't _disagree_ with you more. For example, C source code is
text to: I bet you'll want your editor to know that it's editing C
source code ;)

| What I want to say is that both the mailer and the editor should
| have an option to strip the signature. But when one has the choice,
| choosing the editor to do the job is a better solution.

Yep.

Bye,

-- 
René Clerc  - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Hell is when there is no reason to live and no courage to die.
-William Markiewicz, "Extracts of Existence"



msg22564/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Thomas Hurst]

* mike ledoux ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:22:45AM +0100, René Clerc wrote:
>
> > I couldn't _disagree_ with you more. For example, C source code is
> > text to: I bet you'll want your editor to know that it's editing C
> > source code ;)

I'd perhaps disagree that it should know what it's editing at all times,
but I would agree that a text editor should be able to be told "search
for /^-- $/ and delete anything after it".

> You'd lose that bet.
>
> I don't buy into the emacs philosophy.

Or the Vim philosophy? Or the $insert_some_non_trivial_editor
philosophy?  Who's do you buy into, Pico?  Ed?  Ex?  Notepad? :)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
While your friend holds you affectionately by both
your hands you are safe, for you can watch both of his.

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Justin R. Miller]

Thus spake Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> >  - pgp userid identification
> > 
> > Despite the fact that I've composed an e-mail to a person whose
> > e-mail address matches exactly one of the userid's in my gpg key
> > ring, and despite the fact that gpg will select the correct key
> > every time when invoked seperately on the command line, mutt insists
> > on prompting me to choose between several keys with somewhat similar
> > e-mail addresses attached to them. 
> 
> No one's addressed this so I'll assume there's currently no way to fix
> it.  If this is intentional behavior,  I'm very curious as to the
> rational.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I consider this
> broken.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a final confirmation of
whose key I'm encrypting with before I send a message.  For my close
friends, I have a send-hook set up (to encrypt) and that searches for
their key(s), but never prompts me.  All of the others will prompt, and
I think this is usually because the key(s) have more than one UID
associated with them.  I'm not sure how selecting a different UID on the
same key would make a difference, though...

-- 
Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
View my website at http://codesorcery.net
Please encrypt email using key 0xC9C40C31



msg22596/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Samuel Padgett]

mike ledoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I don't buy into the idea that the editor should be the beginning and
> the end of my interaction with the system.  I expect a text editor to
> be good at editing text--nothing more, nothing less.  To insist that
> the editor should know the difference between editing email, C source,
> or an X pixmap runs counter to the Unix philosophy.

This is a complete non-sequitor.  Just because my editor
recognizes the .c extension doesn't mean it's "the beginning and
the end of my interaction with the system".  And I don't see how
recognizing C source files runs counter to the UNIX philosophy:
the editor is still dedicated to editing *text*.

> If you really care, I use vi--*not* vim.  I'm comfortable with both ed
> and ex, but I wouldn't want to use them for email if I could avoid it.

Real UNIX users only compose email with ed, no doubt about it! ;-)

Sam

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Derek D. Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, Justin R. Miller hath spake thusly:
> Thus spake Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> > >  - pgp userid identification
> > > 
> > > Despite the fact that I've composed an e-mail to a person whose
> > > e-mail address matches exactly one of the userid's in my gpg key
> > > ring, and despite the fact that gpg will select the correct key
> > > every time when invoked seperately on the command line, mutt insists
> > > on prompting me to choose between several keys with somewhat similar
> > > e-mail addresses attached to them. 
> > 
> > No one's addressed this so I'll assume there's currently no way to fix
> > it.  If this is intentional behavior,  I'm very curious as to the
> > rational.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I consider this
> > broken.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a final confirmation of
> whose key I'm encrypting with before I send a message.

Well it certainly can be made an option...  But can you tell me what
possible reason you'd have for encrypting mail to someone to whom
you're not sending it?  This makes no sense to me at all.  Have you
EVER done this?

> For my close friends, I have a send-hook set up (to encrypt) and
> that searches for their key(s), but never prompts me.  All of the
> others will prompt, and I think this is usually because the key(s)
> have more than one UID associated with them.  I'm not sure how
> selecting a different UID on the same key would make a difference,
> though...

The only time I'm ever prompted is when a) the person I'm sending to
has an e-mail address on their key that is similar to another e-mail
address I have in my keyring, or b) when I have not signed the key of
the person in question.

I have multiple UIDs on my key, and have other keys with multiple
UIDs, and I'm not prompted when I send to those keys.

- -- 
Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- -
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8Ox0mdjdlQoHP510RAjMbAJ41lAjxhsPAwnA+v0uu3a358RiNrgCglkZA
PvdckVRn8RTclueIzWbQXkI=
=/WYV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Dale Woolridge]

On  8-Jan-2002 10:55 Justin R. Miller wrote:
| 
| I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a final confirmation of
| whose key I'm encrypting with before I send a message.  For my close
| friends, I have a send-hook set up (to encrypt) and that searches for
| their key(s), but never prompts me.  All of the others will prompt, and
| I think this is usually because the key(s) have more than one UID
| associated with them.  I'm not sure how selecting a different UID on the
| same key would make a difference, though...

Still, it's a common complaint that pgp-hook makes more work for
anyone that uses it.  Although the documentation would suggest
otherwise, pgp-hook only provides a hint about the key to use and
doesn't actually select a key at all.  I don't think anyone finds
this behaviour intuitive, making it undesirable.

My patch (optionally) eliminates this behaviour and it also does
the key selection too (optionally), but only if there is only one
matching key.  Keys with more than one UID are considered one key,
but the UIDs are not ignored for the purposes of matching.  If the
key has not been signed, then the standard behaviour of selecting
from a list is used.

Whatever you might be doing, this is probably easier:
set pgp_confirmhook=no
send-hook . set pgp_autoselectkey=no
pgp-hook  ...
send-hook  set pgp_autoselectkey=yes

I think the behaviour when pgp_autoselectkey is always set is
still reasonable (for most people).
--
-Dale

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[René Clerc]

* Samuel Padgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-01-2002 17:39]:

[all context]
| Real UNIX users only compose email with ed, no doubt about it! ;-)

Real UNIX users telnet to the SMTP port ;)

-- 
René Clerc  - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. You
can't blow an uncertain trumpet.
-Theodore Hesburgh



msg22638/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[David T-G]

Volker -

...and then Volker Moell said...
% 
% Lars Hecking wrote:
% >  
% >  Secondly, mutt also supports checking of traditionally signed email
% >  (i.e. without conversion).
% > 
% > P  check-traditional-pgp  check for classic pgp
% 
...
% single mail I can hit Esc-P, but when searching in a complete folder in
% the message bodies this leads to a problem.

Do you mean a folder of emails that are non-MIME pgp and you want them to
be seen as PGP messages?  Well, what about a muttrc hook line or a macro
that simply says

  .

to tag 'em all, hit esc-P for 'em, and then untag?


HTH & HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg22656/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[David T-G]

Derek, et al --

...and then Derek D. Martin said...
% 
% > >There seems to be no way to make mutt include a forwarded message in
% > >quoted text.  MUCH more often than not, that's the behavior I want, so
...
% > The easiest way to do this is, of course, to just use reply. ;-)
% 
% Well, yes, except that I sometimes also use forward instead of reply,
% so that signatures are not stripped from the message.  And sometimes I
% don't want attribution/quote marks.  But often that does work...

I trust that you've not only seen $mime_forward but also $forward_quote.


% 
...
% [SNIP more of my ramblings...]
% 
% > Try Esc-P when displaying a message.
% 
% Ok... I was unfamiliar with this option/feature.  I guess you could
% add another gripe: documentation.  The old version is well documented,
% but the new one has none, as far as I could tell.  

It may be a silly question, but have you installed the appropriate
documentation for this version where mutt expects to look for it?
I did a quick check and found check-traditional-pgp under section 2.3.4.
Of course, it wouldn't be in a 1.2.5 version of the manual...


% 
% Thanks
% 
% -- 
% Derek Martin   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% -
% I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
% GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
% Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
% Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg22657/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Jan 08, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> ...and then Derek D. Martin said...
> % [SNIP more of my ramblings...]
> % 
> % > Try Esc-P when displaying a message.
> % 
> % Ok... I was unfamiliar with this option/feature.  I guess you could
> % add another gripe: documentation.  The old version is well documented,
> % but the new one has none, as far as I could tell.  
> 
> It may be a silly question, but have you installed the appropriate
> documentation for this version where mutt expects to look for it?
> I did a quick check and found check-traditional-pgp under section 2.3.4.
> Of course, it wouldn't be in a 1.2.5 version of the manual...

It's also documented rather plainly in the NEWS file, found on the website
as changes.html.



msg22659/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[Volker Moell]

David T-G wrote:
> 
> Do you mean a folder of emails that are non-MIME pgp and you want them to
> be seen as PGP messages?  Well, what about a muttrc hook line or a macro
> that simply says
> 
>   .
> 
> to tag 'em all, hit esc-P for 'em, and then untag?

Great, thanks! I should think more in macros. :-)

But while trying out this ferature I saw, that I didn't convince mutt to
seek in PGP encrypted mails at all (via "T"/"~b xxx"). Neither on the
old or new PGP style.  Even when viewing the mail. Is this true? How can
I find body informations in PGP encrypted mails in a complete mailbox?

Ahoi,

-volker

-- 
  http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/

There are two ways to write error-free programs.
Only the third one works.

Re: Mutt sucks less than the rest

[David T-G]

Volker --

...and then Volker Moell said...
% 
% David T-G wrote:
% > 
% >   .
% > 
% > to tag 'em all, hit esc-P for 'em, and then untag?
% 
% Great, thanks! I should think more in macros. :-)

No problem :-)


% 
% But while trying out this ferature I saw, that I didn't convince mutt to
% seek in PGP encrypted mails at all (via "T"/"~b xxx"). Neither on the
% old or new PGP style.  Even when viewing the mail. Is this true? How can
% I find body informations in PGP encrypted mails in a complete mailbox?

I don't believe you can; the closest you could come would be a whole
encrypted folder or to tag all and decrypt-copy the lot to somewhere else
where you do your search and then, of course, thoroughly wipe the temp
space you used (which would always be your problem with an encrypted
folder via the compressed-folders patch).


% 
% Ahoi,

HTH & HAND


% 
% -volker
% 
% -- 
%   http://die-Moells.de/  *  http://Stama90.de/  *  http://ScriptDale.de/
% 
% There are two ways to write error-free programs.
% Only the third one works.


:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg22682/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature