Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
On 07/24/02 22:11 +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: > To summarize: Mutt will delete any X-Mailer header. Confirmed. Thanks.
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
* Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-24 20:45]: > > I assume that if you do no specifically "unignore" X-* lines > > then they will be weeded out. > > > > let's test this: > > > > $ mutt -f mutt.testmail > > :unignore x- > > > > > > bingo - X-Test: line *included*! :-) > > That does not work with x-mailer sven. > Why didn't you test the header in question? because it should be self-evident that mutt will not send with an identification other than the one it adds itself. that's why. you can complain to the developers for not documenting their code enough on this point, of course. Sven [off to see a sneak preview]
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
> I assume that if you do no specifically "unignore" X-* lines > then they will be weeded out. > > let's test this: > > $ mutt -f mutt.testmail > :unignore x- > > > bingo - X-Test: line *included*! :-) That does not work with x-mailer sven. Why didn't you test the header in question? Michael -- "Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX." (By Stephan Zielinski) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
* John P Verel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-24 20:03]: > On 07/24/02 21:12 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: > > resending takes the message as is. > > no hooks or whatever get applied. > > feature. period. > Not to be difficult, but to quote the on-line manual: > > 'With resend-message.. Note that the amount of headers included > here depends on the value of the ``$weed'' variable.' > > What does the last sentence mean? a valid question! thanks for pointing it out - i did not see this. > As the original message had an X-Mailer header included, I took > the manual to mean that it would be picked up in the new message. I assume that if you do no specifically "unignore" X-* lines then they will be weeded out. let's test this: $ mutt -f mutt.testmail :unignore x- bingo - X-Test: line *included*! :-) Sven === mutt.testmail >From mutt-testers Wed Jul 24 23:22:21 2002 From: Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mutt Users' List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <20020724200253.GB1775@Verdi> X-Test: does resend-message weed headers or not?
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
John P Verel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > 'With resend-message, mutt takes the current message as a template for > a new message. This function is best described as "recall from > arbitrary folders". It can conveniently be used to forward MIME > messages while preserving the original mail structure. Note that the > amount of headers included here depends on the value of the ``$weed'' > variable.' > > What does the last sentence mean? As the original message had an > X-Mailer header included, I took the manual to mean that it would be > picked up in the new message. I seem to recall a previous discussion on this topic. Please grep the archives for further details. To summarize: Mutt will delete any X-Mailer header. HTH, Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
On 07/24/02 21:12 +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: > > resending takes the message as is. > no hooks or whatever get applied. > feature. period. Not to be difficult, but to quote the on-line manual: 'With resend-message, mutt takes the current message as a template for a new message. This function is best described as "recall from arbitrary folders". It can conveniently be used to forward MIME messages while preserving the original mail structure. Note that the amount of headers included here depends on the value of the ``$weed'' variable.' What does the last sentence mean? As the original message had an X-Mailer header included, I took the manual to mean that it would be picked up in the new message. John
Re: X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
* John P Verel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-24 14:54]: > When I resend a message, using esc e, I find that my > X-Mailer header is not picked up from the original message. > The manual indicates that weeding is used when resending. .. > What obvious thing am I missing? resending takes the message as is. no hooks or whatever get applied. feature. period. Sven
X-Mailer Header Not Being Picked Up With Resend Command
When I resend a message, using esc e, I find that my X-Mailer header is not picked up from the original message. The manual indicates that weeding is used when resending. My .muttrc contains: ignore unignorefrom: subject to cc mail-followup-to \ date x-mailer x-url weed in not set, so should default to yes, per the manual. What obvious thing am I missing? TIA John
Re: X-Mailer header
Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:17:46:PM -0500 David Collantes wrote: [ Mutt doesn't set X-Mailer ] This is just a kind of advertising. If you'd like you can create one with a simple my_hdr command like this one: folder . my_hdr X-Mailer: Mutt/$version How to grep the version number out of 'mutt -v' you'll have to figure out yourself. Cheers, Rocco. msg26486/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* Rob 'Feztaa' Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04- 1 01:03:29 -0700]: >Alas! John Buttery spake thus: >> So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there >> doesn't seem to be one. > >It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word "standard"; it's >more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the >early days of USENET (maybe even earlier). Well, I try to follow convention, subject to the following fall-through logic (does this typify this group or what): 1) Actual draft standards, at least I think that's what they're called; whatever an RFC is called after Al Gore puts his Creator seal of approval on it or whatever and it actually becomes officially carved in stone 2) RFC specifications 3) Accepted norms 4) What I think is a good idea Of course, I try to temper #4 with as much expert advice as possible...hence my participation in this thread. Basically, absolutely the > character is in there, even if no RFC says it is. What doesn't seem to be carved out yet is the presence or absence of the space following (or not following) it. So, I'm left with #4. The argument for _not_ having the space is increased space for deep quote nesting; the argument for having the space is increased parseability by editors and MUAs (and maybe even people, though that's a secondary concern for me really...I can count). So, based on that, I'm going to be changing my quote "character" back to "> ". As always, no decision final, any additional comments/input welcome. -- "Quick! Hide behind this pane of glass!" "You fool, you can see through it." "Not if you close your eyes!" msg26462/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what Rob 'Feztaa' Park said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:03:29AM -0700: > > It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word "standard"; it's > more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the > early days of USENET (maybe even earlier). Goes back to FIDONET, too. msg26461/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
Thomas, et al -- ...and then Thomas Hurst said... % ... % is better because it saves a single character. I personally find % quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the % exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of: % % C=This is quoted text % C=Bla bla bla % C= % C=Cookie to whoever works out what this brain dead quote string is % C=supposed to represent. Piece of cake; just set your $display_filter to your Fortran compiler :-) :-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! msg26459/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
Alas! John Buttery spake thus: > So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there > doesn't seem to be one. It's not a formal standard in any sense of the word "standard"; it's more like a deeply rooted tradition that goes all the way back to the early days of USENET (maybe even earlier). -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?" "NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?" "I'll put `maybe.'" -- Bloom County msg26458/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Re: X-Mailer header
--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Shawn McMahon spake thus: > perl -e "fork while true":-) Note to self: load averages in excess of 300 aren't healthy. ;) --=20 Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The only time a dog gets complimented is when he doesn't do anything. -- C. Schulz --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8qBIDPTh2iSBKeccRAkZaAJ9qSIqCT0cKNY66yMDKcLePrBxCqACeJx1h HN73QS87m1O9j/sZkFdcQMM= =PtH4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--
Re: X-Mailer header
* Thomas Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04- 1 02:52:00 +0100]: >* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >^ The problem with using just '>' is that the quote string merges with >the text and becomes difficult to disinguish, not only for users, but >for reflowing algorithms which often have to put up with crap like: > >| %>>JF > Bla bla > >That space goes a long way to ease working out what's a >INITAL quote >and what's not. Hmm. That's a good point. Not so much the human parseability angle, but I suppose it would make things easier for the machine parsers. >please don't say: > >>>Foo bar wibble > >is better because it saves a single character. I personally find Well, of course it's better for that reason. Sure it's a small improvement, but some is better than none. However, it's quite possible that the reasons for doing it the other way outweigh the space savings. >quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the >exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of: > >C=This is quoted text >C=Bla bla bla >C= >C=Cookie to whoever works out what this brain dead quote string is >C=supposed to represent. Yeah; the thing about that quoting is that it can be useful to trace heavily-nested attributions when people mangle/remove some/all of the attribution lines. Of course, the real fix for this is for the previous repliers to have quoted properly, not to introduce a multi-character quote...um...character. :) I like your idea of "squashing" all leading > characters, but leaving a space after the group as a whole. That would save some space, and not make things any harder on the parsers, since you're still looking at "( zero or more ( > characters followed by zero or one spaces ) ) followed by a space". I'll have to percolate on this some, maybe I need to change my quote string back. No biscuit for the person who said ">" was nonstandard, you know who you are. :) -- ...floor pie... msg26456/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
* John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]: > >NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, > >especially you David. ;-) ^ The problem with using just '>' is that the quote string merges with the text and becomes difficult to disinguish, not only for users, but for reflowing algorithms which often have to put up with crap like: | %>>JF > Bla bla That space goes a long way to ease working out what's a >INITAL quote and what's not. If you want to turn: > > > > > > Foo bar wibble Into: >> Foo bar wibble Then that's fine (although I prefer the spaces; quotes rarely need to nest deeply, and the space makes working out the depth easier), but please don't say: >>Foo bar wibble is better because it saves a single character. I personally find quoting without a space after the quote more irritating than any of the exotic quote strings I've come across, with the possible exception of: C=This is quoted text C=Bla bla bla C= C=Cookie to whoever works out what this brain dead quote string is C=supposed to represent. With a space even that fits in with the (possible initial)([>|%=#:;!$&*-+])(possible initial) interpretation; without it, it's difficult to work out whether "Bla" is part of a name or initial or not. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey. -- Andy Warhol
Re: X-Mailer header
* Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-30 13:35:04 +0100]: >NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, >especially you David. ;-) Well, I just did some googling and found a bunch of sites about quote characters; none of my attempts at searching the RFCs turned up anything useful, but I don't think I was using very good search terms. There doesn't seem to be an authoritative answer on this, despite what one of the eminent presences on this list implied a while back (in private; hence why I changed from "> " to ">" in the first place...). So, while I'm definitely interested in following the standards, there doesn't seem to be one. Eliminating the space saves data, but more importantly it allows one more character to fit actual text into. Couple this with the fact that I've never heard of a mailer that triggered on "> " for a quote, but not ">", and I don't see a compelling reason to switch back. Feel free to point out the authoritative source if there is one; I've changed my mutt settings plenty of times in response to things people say here (most recently my attribution string). By the way, Sven, you might want to check out this URL, I'm getting a 403 error: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/message/editing.html -- Hi David! :) msg26453/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 04:41:57PM -0500: > > the message is signed, excellent! Totally valid in the court of law ;-) Bah, > will not be necessary: be sure to bring with you your curriculum, specially > your best Perl script. :- Over and out. Here: perl -e "fork while true":-) msg26451/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
OT: Re: X-Mailer header
On 03-31-2002 at 12:24 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards. Plonk! > > College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida > > Don't make me drive over there and smack you; it's only about 20 minutes > from Maitland. :-) Ops! Hmmm, no, I take the plonk back. Let's see (browse his USENET and ML thread list), you made it to number 42 this month, 143 for the year. Ahhh, the message is signed, excellent! Totally valid in the court of law ;-) Bah, will not be necessary: be sure to bring with you your curriculum, specially your best Perl script. :- Over and out. Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:05:22AM -0500: > > :- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so? RFCs are not Standards, but they are standards. If you don't think so, stop using MIME, because it hasn't been adopted as a Standard yet, despite being a standard. > College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida Don't make me drive over there and smack you; it's only about 20 minutes from Maitland. :-) msg26447/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
On 03-31-2002 at 09:11 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What standards are you talking about? > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ :- RFC's are *not* standards. Who ever told you so? > Hope this clears up the confusion. It was never a confusion, just a wrong statement: yours. ;-) Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "Few are those who see with their own eyes... feel with their own hearts." smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:54:39AM -0500: > > > Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but > > X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled. > > What standards are you talking about? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ > There are *not* standards. There are plenty of standards; however, X-Mailer is not defined in one, as I clearly stated above. > And even if > they were, why to offer the possibility to have custom headers (my_hdr) is > they are not to be controlled? Controlled = "you can't change it, because an RFC defines it" Uncontrolled = "you can change it with my_hdr because no RFC defines it" Hope this clears up the confusion. msg26442/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
On 03-31-2002 at 05:48 EST, Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like > > every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. > > Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but > X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled. What standards are you talking about? There are *not* standards. And even if they were, why to offer the possibility to have custom headers (my_hdr) is they are not to be controlled? Anyway, thanks for providing a patch for this and having it on the CVS already. Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: X-Mailer header
begin quoting what David T-G said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:34:59PM -0500: > > ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like > every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. Any header that's defined in a standard should be controlled, but X-Mailer is not defined in a standard. It shouldn't be controlled. msg26437/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
Jeremy, et al -- ...and then Jeremy Blosser said... % % On Mar 30, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: % > ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like % > every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. % % I'm not really sure what the deal is; it *is* available as far as I can % tell. See the headers on this message. I was going on the initial statement that it goes away after a postponement. I didn't care enough to test it myself :-) 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! msg26435/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
On Mar 30, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like > every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. I'm not really sure what the deal is; it *is* available as far as I can tell. See the headers on this message. msg26434/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
Michael, et al -- ...and then Michael Tatge said... % % John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: % > * Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-29 22:27:02 +0100]: % > >Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] % > % > Actually, isn't the prefix supposed to be ">" whereas mutt uses "> " % > by default? % % NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, % especially you David. ;-) I was trying *so* hard not to get involved! Arrrgh; now you've done it. % % Michael % -- % PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. 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! msg26433/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > * Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-29 22:27:02 +0100]: > >Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] > > Actually, isn't the prefix supposed to be ">" whereas mutt uses "> " > by default? NO. It's "> " Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, especially you David. ;-) Michael -- PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: X-Mailer header
* Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-29 22:27:02 +0100]: >Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] Actually, isn't the prefix supposed to be ">" whereas mutt uses "> " by default? -- geez, it was working yesterday... msg26414/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: X-Mailer header
--gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Sven Guckes spake thus: $ Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] Why ever not?? :D $=20 $ --=20 $ Intolerant people should be shot. % Rob 'Feztaa' Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] % Air pollution is really making us pay through the nose. --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8pUk1PTh2iSBKeccRAqJTAJ0T28AjBulJ3Ifuy3jKLu8+C5vxKQCeO1dI 0IBfBaBEu/3yqQbNdbcbD7A= =waqW -END PGP SIGNATURE- --gKMricLos+KVdGMg--
Re: X-Mailer header
* Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > X-Mailer is now deprecated in favor of User-Agent. > Thus, Mutt weeds any x-mailer fields it finds in the > header and replaces it with its own User-Agent field. * David Collantes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-29 19:38]: > I still do not understand. If I am given the choice to > set any header I want on Mutt, why should the header > be weed? I am already telling Mutt to set the > User-Agent, but what if I want X-Mailer too? What if > I use X-Mailer for something else? Shouldn't it be > left alone? Please correct if I am wrong and explain. What use is the identification of the user agent when everyone can set what he wants? "you sent your mail with 'cat'? kewl!" not! Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] -- Intolerant people should be shot.
Re: X-Mailer header
On 03-29-2002 at 12:48 EST, Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said > > that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will > > take it out when postponing. My question is, what variable tells Mutt to set > > the X-Mailer header? I know I can (and I do) set user-agent = "yes", but > > which for X-Mailer? > > X-Mailer is now deprecated in favor of User-Agent. Thus, Mutt weeds any > x-mailer fields it finds in the header and replaces it with its own > User-Agent field. I still do not understand. If I am given the choice to set any header I want on Mutt, why should the header be weed? I am already telling Mutt to set the User-Agent, but what if I want X-Mailer too? What if I use X-Mailer for something else? Shouldn't it be left alone? Please correct if I am wrong and explain. Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Re: X-Mailer header
David Collantes wrote: > On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header > was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said > that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will > take it out when postponing. My question is, what variable tells Mutt to set > the X-Mailer header? I know I can (and I do) set user-agent = "yes", but > which for X-Mailer? > > If it is not generated by Mutt, then my bug is still a bug. X-Mailer is now deprecated in favor of User-Agent. Thus, Mutt weeds any x-mailer fields it finds in the header and replaces it with its own User-Agent field.
Re: X-Mailer header
David Collantes wrote: > > On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header > was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said > that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will > take it out when postponing. My question is, what variable tells Mutt to set > the X-Mailer header? I know I can (and I do) set user-agent = "yes", but > which for X-Mailer? > > If it is not generated by Mutt, then my bug is still a bug. there's no variable; you just set my_hdr X-Mailer: -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
X-Mailer header
Hi there! On submitted bug (now closed I believe) I stated that the X-Mailer header was not kept after a message was postponed. The guy who closed the bug said that Mutt expects that header to be generated by itself (Mutt), so it will take it out when postponing. My question is, what variable tells Mutt to set the X-Mailer header? I know I can (and I do) set user-agent = "yes", but which for X-Mailer? If it is not generated by Mutt, then my bug is still a bug. Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." msg26380/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: x-mailer header
clemensF proclaimed on mutt-users that: >> Andreas Wessel: > >> What´s it with these "X"-headers anyway? >> Does there have to be an X before any self entered header? >> RFC? > >the common use for it these days is to includer user-info in the headers >(e.g. my pgp-key#). they coexist peacefully with the rfc822 headers until >religion claims it's toll. only thing is: they are not too well defined, >naturally, so i can't just grep for them, unless i know how a particular >user/company/organization use them. Anything X-* is a user / mta / mua defined header, which is not necessary for processing (except perhaps by the user / mta / mua itself). For example, Pegasus Mail asks for read receipts with the outdated X-Confirm-Reading-To: header. Most mailers _won't_ return read receipts on seeing this header, but Pegasus (and a few others) will do so. Of course, there is always the good old vanity tag - X-Mailer: foo Some pop servers might add X-POP3-RCPT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for their own processing / filtering. Several people love to add their own headers - X-Beer: Good, doh X-Files: Great Show ... or whatever. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr at staff.juno.com Captain Penny's Law: You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you Can't Fool Mom.
Re: x-mailer header
> Andreas Wessel: > What´s it with these "X"-headers anyway? > Does there have to be an X before any self entered header? > RFC? the common use for it these days is to includer user-info in the headers (e.g. my pgp-key#). they coexist peacefully with the rfc822 headers until religion claims it's toll. only thing is: they are not too well defined, naturally, so i can't just grep for them, unless i know how a particular user/company/organization use them. -- clemens
Re: x-mailer header
> Suresh Ramasubramanian: > :) ... but is there any hassle about X-Mailer: remaining in your mail? I > haven't yet seen an RFC raising any objection to X-Foo: headers yet :) it's no rfc matter, it's personal taste. > If you don't like to see it you can always set ignore X-Mailer :) but i want to drop the x-mailer inserted into =my= messages. and so i did, by recompiling the sources with just one little line changed. -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x-mailer header
clemensF proclaimed on mutt-users that: >> Suresh Ramasubramanian: > >> >unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only) >> >> +That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if it will get >> rid of the X-Mailer tag (which is not generated by newer mutts anyway). > >i think you repeat exactly what he said, and i'm not really sure if i am >grateful for it. :) ... but is there any hassle about X-Mailer: remaining in your mail? I haven't yet seen an RFC raising any objection to X-Foo: headers yet :) If you don't like to see it you can always set ignore X-Mailer :) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr at staff.juno.com Never commit yourself! Let someone else commit you.
Re: x-mailer header
> David T-G: > I'd try something like > my_hdr X-Mailer: "" no go. recompiled the whole s**t. bet'ya can't see no heada! -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x-mailer header
> Suresh Ramasubramanian: > >unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only) > > +That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if it will get > rid of the X-Mailer tag (which is not generated by newer mutts anyway). i think you repeat exactly what he said, and i'm not really sure if i am grateful for it. anyways, folks, i will undertake the task of pipapatching mutt away from mutt! -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x-mailer header
> Reinhard Foerster: > On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote: > > my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of. > > how do i do that? > > unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only) oh no, nono, please, there =has= to be a way! please, save me! do i have to set sendmail='/local/bin/mutt-go-away | sendmail'? -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED] do D4685B884894C483
Re: x-mailer header
clemens -- ...and then clemensF said... % my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of. % how do i do that? I'd try something like my_hdr X-Mailer: "" to generate an empty header, which mutt will then not include. I don't think there's a $variable for that in versions which still have that (instead of User-Agent: as some have already shown how to remove). % % -- % clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED] % do D4685B884894C483 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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: x-mailer header
Reinhard Foerster proclaimed on mutt-users that: >On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote: >> my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of. >> how do i do that? > >unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only) +That+ will get rid of the User-Agent: Mutt 1.2i. I doubt if it will get rid of the X-Mailer tag (which is not generated by newer mutts anyway). -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr at staff.juno.com An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Re: x-mailer header
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:39:21AM +0200, clemensF wrote: > my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of. > how do i do that? unset user_agent (mutt 1.2 only) Reinhard
x-mailer header
my messages carry a "x-mailer: mutt" header that i'd like to get rid of. how do i do that? -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED] do D4685B884894C483
user-agent and x-mailer header
Just out of curiousity, can both co-exist in the same message header (like mine) or does it violate any standard (which one)? -- Ronny Haryanto
