On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 03:04:57PM -0800, Brandon Long wrote:
> You can also use text/enriched messages instead of text/plain. To each
> their own. With text/enriched, at least, most modern mailers have a
> chance of handling it.
Are you saying that Mutt will display text/enriched with colo
On 02/18/99 Rob Reid uttered the following other thing: At 3:10 PM EST on February 18 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent off: Rob Reid dixit: [...] But I do appreciate patches/certain announcements being signed, and it's annoying if mutt doesn't ask if [...]
Sorry to ask this, but I don't know whether this
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 04:52:22PM -0500, Douglas L. Potts wrote:
> I seem to remember a discussion a while back where someone was able to use
> folder-hooks to say--gunzip a Mail folder. That way the messages are in
> zipped/archived type format until the folder is entered. If this sounds
> fam
I seem to remember a discussion a while back where someone was able to use
folder-hooks to say--gunzip a Mail folder. That way the messages are in
zipped/archived type format until the folder is entered. If this sounds
familiar or if someone is currently doing this, I would appreciate any help i
At 3:10 PM EST on February 18 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent off:
> Rob Reid dixit:
> >
> > [...] But I ddoo appreciate patches/certain announcements being signed,
> > and it's annoying if mutt _d_o_e_s_n_'_t ask if [...]
>
> Sorry to ask this, but I don't know whether this was a feature of m
Rob Reid dixit:
>
> [...] But I ddoo appreciate patches/certain announcements being signed,
> and it's annoying if mutt _d_o_e_s_n_'_t ask if [...]
Sorry to ask this, but I don't know whether this was a feature of mutt.
The words "do" and "don't" of your message showed in bright white
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=uTRFFR9qmiCqR05s; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=v9Ux+11Zm5mwPlX6; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=AhhlLboLdkugWU4S; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
I would appreciate if mails to the list are only PGP signed
if they address patches or other distribution details. I would
also like to suggest that everyone restricts their PGP signatures
to version 2.x. Many people have not upgraded to PGP 5/6 for
various reasons, and have no intention to
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
> > This(AFIAK) says "when I reply to something sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it
> > should be from [EMAIL PROTECTED], and it should change my .signature
> > accordingly." Is this correct? If it is, I believe that I have found a
> > bug. If it is not, can someone please explain why?
> It is not a bu
Thus spake David Thorburn-Gundlach ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I don't know much about the bugs list, but I did notice one thing in
> your email:
> % X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
[...]
> % Mutt 0.93.2 (1998-07-29)
> ...
>
> Which mutt are you actually using?
I'm using 0.95.3i here at work (or else Oec wou
Thus spake Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I considure this a bug. If it's an old one I'm sorry. I've
> > read the mutt FAQ by Fefe and the mutt fixes page by guckes. Didn't
> > find it there.
>
> It's fixed in 0.95.2.
Ok, thanks.
--
Andreas Jaekel, UNIX System Administration, Alcate
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
On 1999-02-18 14:47:05 +0100, Andreas Jaekel wrote:
> I considure this a bug. If it's an old one I'm sorry. I've
> read the mutt FAQ by Fefe and the mutt fixes page by guckes. Didn't
> find it there.
It's fixed in 0.95.2.
tlr
--
http://home.pages.de/~roessler/
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 11:56:32 +0100, Hans Bogaards wrote:
> This results in a question: Is it alright if I send patches like this to the
> mutt-user list or should I send it to the developers list? Currently I'm not
> subscribed to the developers list, because I'm not actively following the
> d
Hi folks.
I'm new to mutt, so don't jump on me, please.
The advantage is that I have no complicated .muttrc you might
have to scan for errors.
I've startet mutt on a RedHat 5.2 system (the usual mutt RPM
is installed there) and read my mail. When finished, I hit 'q'
to quit mutt and was aksed we
Hello,
> Is there any easy way to have the default save name be the same as the
> alias for an address?
>
> For example:
> alias joe Joe Shmoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But, if I save this message (or mail to the user and get a Fcc), it will
> go to "a98985". Is there any way to make it go to "j
[I send this again, because it seems that it got lost (according to the
mailing list archives)]
Hi!
I'm trying to upgrade from mutt-0.79 to mutt-0.95. The Changelog doesn't
seem to reach that far back...
I got used to mutt's behaviour of saving read messages from mailing
lists. If I received a
It seems to me that this is a function that is missing from many mail readers
for linux. I am by no means a hack but it seems to me that it would not be to
hard to move the current delete command to D instead of d and rewrite the
current code so that d works like the save function except that i
23 matches
Mail list logo
