On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:57:32 +
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:31:42PM -, Curt wrote:
> >If any survey was to occur, perhaps it would have been best to engage in
> >it preliminarily.
>
> I think that's a little unreasonable. On a relaxed list such as this, I
> don't
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:31:42PM -, Curt wrote:
If any survey was to occur, perhaps it would have been best to engage in
it preliminarily.
I think that's a little unreasonable. On a relaxed list such as this, I
don't think posters can be expected to put in the kind of research work
that
Celejar wrote:
> It will often be somewhat more complicated. Many smarthosts will refuse
> to accept mail if the envelope 'From' and / or the email 'From:' header
> do not match the user's account name with the smarthost, so address
> rewriting will be necessary.
>From what I know is that sooner
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 18:56:50 -0600
David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 22 Feb 2019 at 14:16:43 (+), Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
> > > What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
> >
> > I thought it was uncommon, but
On Fri 22 Feb 2019 at 14:16:43 (+), Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
> > What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
>
> I thought it was uncommon, but perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to spend
> my time exhaustively
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:16:43 +
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
> >What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
>
> I thought it was uncommon, but perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to spend
> my time exhaustively surveying
On 2019-02-22, Reco wrote:
>>
>> What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
>
> Let's see.
> kmail, balsa, evolution - basically anything that's either shipped with
> DE, or written with "Modern App" approach in mind.
Kmail has it:
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-02-22, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:37:06AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> (2) Mutt has a feature that lets you send an EXACT copy of a message
> >>> to a different address, preserving all of
On 2019-02-22, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
>>What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
>
> I thought it was uncommon, but perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to spend
> my time exhaustively surveying them to be sure. Perhaps
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -, Curt wrote:
What Linux mail user agents lack this feature, if it is uncommon?
I thought it was uncommon, but perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to spend
my time exhaustively surveying them to be sure. Perhaps it's just not
generally a well-known feature.
On 2019-02-22, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:37:06AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> (2) Mutt has a feature that lets you send an EXACT copy of a message
>>> to a different address, preserving all of the headers and content
>>> verbatim. Mutt calls this "bouncing".
>>
>>If
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:52:37AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> The same result can be achieved with a procmail recipe, or a shell
> script, if you have access to the raw mail.
... and if you do not - you're not using a proper e-mail client anyway.
Reco
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 09:37:06AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
(2) Mutt has a feature that lets you send an EXACT copy of a message
to a different address, preserving all of the headers and content
verbatim. Mutt calls this "bouncing".
If this is such a good feature, why is mutt the only agent
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:36:06AM -, Curt wrote:
[...]
> Whoever came up with the idea of calling the redirection of a message a
> bounce, when the term was already in use for 'Return to sender/Address
> unknown/No such number/No such zone' (hi Elvis!) should be sent to bed
> with no
On 2019-02-21, Celejar wrote:
>>
>> And as far as I know, fetchmail has no ability/facility to bounce a
>> message. Fetchmail-6.3.26 IIRC. Locally built from tarball.
>
> 'Bouncing' a message is typically done by a MUA (Kmail, in your case),
> not the MDA (fetchmail, in your case). Other MUAs
On Thursday 21 February 2019 11:20:52 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > You can also
On Thursday 21 February 2019 09:59:53 Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:40:28 -0500
>
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2019 08:25:54 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300,
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:40:28 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2019 08:25:54 Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > You can also help
On Thu 21 Feb 2019 at 16:32:18 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > You can also help us by
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 09:01:04 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> (2) Mutt has a feature that lets you send an EXACT copy of a message to
> a different address, preserving all of the headers and content
> verbatim. Mutt calls this "bouncing".
I'm just coming in from left field (without
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:38:50AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Sorry for being so clear, but I feel strongly about mail: it's the last
> > means of communication left where I have the choice of client software,
>
> Mostly true. It does suffer from a terrible design w.r.t encryption, tho.
>
> Sorry for being so clear, but I feel strongly about mail: it's the last
> means of communication left where I have the choice of client software,
Mostly true. It does suffer from a terrible design w.r.t encryption, tho.
The other existing mediums (with a choice of clients) I'm aware of are
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> > >
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2019 09:01:04 Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > > > Forwarding and bouncing are completely different operations. If
> > > > you aren't using mutt/neomutt and don't have a literal bounce
> > > > feature, then please just ignore this part.
> > >
> > > I am
On 2019-02-21, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>> (2) Mutt has a feature that lets you send an EXACT copy of a message
>> to a different address, preserving all of the headers and content
>> verbatim. Mutt calls this "bouncing".
>
> If this is such a good feature, why is mutt the only agent doing it?
>>
On Thursday 21 February 2019 09:01:04 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > Forwarding and bouncing are completely different operations. If
> > > you aren't using mutt/neomutt and don't have a literal bounce
> > > feature, then please just ignore this part.
> >
> > I am not using mutt. TDE version of
> > Forwarding and bouncing are completely different operations. If you
> > aren't using mutt/neomutt and don't have a literal bounce feature,
> > then please just ignore this part.
>
> I am not using mutt. TDE version of kmail. And I'd point out that the
> threat of a list unsubscribe is
Hi.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:43:47AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2019 08:32:18 Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > On Thu,
On Thursday 21 February 2019 08:25:54 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> > > >
On Thursday 21 February 2019 08:32:18 Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > You can
Hi.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> > >
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> > > report-lists...@lists.debian.org
> This _might_ be a good idea, if that address took forwards.
On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> > report-lists...@lists.debian.org
>
> Thanks
> -- t
This _might_ be a good idea, if that address took
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to
> report-lists...@lists.debian.org
Thanks
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
34 matches
Mail list logo
