On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 07:13:01AM -0700, CB wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:05:31AM -0400, John P. Verel wrote:
Also, behavior is somewhat a function of how you run mutt. For
instance, I run inside a KDE2.1 Konsole. Konsole allows choice of
keyboard mappings. I've had to fiddle
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:18:30PM -0700, CB wrote:
Well now that I'm armed with a little bit of help, gpg should be a bit
easier to get working (going to first key party next weekend).
Don't forget to upload/post your public key to a keyserver after you're
set.
Cheers.
--
Horace G.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 08:18:01PM +, Subba Rao wrote:
I am trying to verify the keys from a signed email. Mutt seems to be trying
to connect to the www.keyserver.net, but always get the following error,
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri Apr 13 20:00:48 2001) --]
gpg:
I use this:
macro attach s save-entrybol~/WINDOWS/eol
Shawn
Previously, Benny Chee wrote:
% hi,
%
% I would like to default save all my attachments to a folder. ie
% when pressed 's', it will be saved to the default folder as
% specified by user. I hate mixing my files on
At 0818 hours on 15 Apr 2001 , Suresh Ramasubramanian gave the following orders:
mbox2maildir from http://cr.yp.to
then rtfm the instructions - quite clear
Thanks for the reply, but I couldn't manage find a 'mbox2maildir' script at
that site. After searching through the old postings from this
Hello,
The FAQ claims that when the mail spool directory is mounted via NFS, mutt
does the locking correctly. But what about the case of a _local_ spool
directory but NFS-mounted account (i.e. folder directory)? Then, mutt seems
to fail to do proper locking here.
Actually, mutt seems to be
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:06:19PM +0200, Christian Ordig wrote:
It's some months ago. If there's some interest I could repost it or put
it onto my website.
it's finally done.
My Mutt Address Book can be found in the Linux section of my website.
For further information read the hints on the
It would be convenient to have replies to my own postings to lists
(threads I've posted in) automatically marked. What filter criterium can
be used in this case?
Andre Berger[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
PGP signature
On 2001-04-15 22:42:55 -0500, Alaeddin A. Aydiner wrote:
Actually, mutt seems to be locking by using a fcntl (not flock)
which should work even under NFS and hence it may simply be that
a locking daemon is not running on the NFS server. I have not
looked at the source, hence I do not know
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:37:03PM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
It would be convenient to have replies to my own postings to lists
(threads I've posted in) automatically marked. What filter criterium can
be used in this case?
If, by "marked", you mean coloured in some way you can do it by
* Rich Lafferty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010416 09:50]:
Mutt saves things by default to the current directory
That's true and that's really, really bothering me. I wonder
why there is a browser available for saving messages, but
not for saving attachments.
There is, and you get to it
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:24:34AM -0500, Tim Legant wrote:
Yes and no. Mutt has to be compiled with the correct options to do it.
Assuming you're on a system where qmail uses flock (not HP/UX or
Solaris), configure mutt with --enable-flock. Then they're both talking
the same language.
Thank
I added some colors to my .muttrc, but it doesn't have
the expected effect. So what's up with that?
I am using a color terminal, Eterm, on a FreeBSD box..
Tnx, rotan.
I've entered some colors in my .muttrc file, but they don't
show up in Eterm, a color monitor I'm using.
So what's up with that?
Tnx, rotan.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:23:24AM +1000, Tony Collins typed:
Thanks for the reply, but I couldn't manage find a 'mbox2maildir' script at
that site. After searching through the old postings from this list, I did
http://cr.yp.to being the qmail site, you'd have found links to not
one, but
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15 instead.
Joe
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:59:29AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:23:24AM +1000, Tony Collins typed:
Thanks for the reply, but I couldn't manage find a 'mbox2maildir' script at
that site. After searching through the old postings from this list, I did
from the secret journal of Joe Copeland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15 instead.
Mutt, like almost every other program in the unix world,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:24:26PM -0700, Joe Copeland wrote:
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15 instead.
Mutt (and MUAs on Unix, in general) don't talk to an SMTP
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
from the secret journal of Joe Copeland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15
Jeff Turner proclaimed on mutt-users that:
Many Unix MUAs (pine, kmail, etc) do talk SMTP. Heck, the only other unix
MUA I've used that *doesn't* talk SMTP natively is "mail".
and elm
It calls the program sendmail directly and pipes the message to it. You want
to install a sendmail
Tim Legant proclaimed on mutt-users that:
Actually, Dan doesn't list third-party stuff on his (the official) qmail
site - http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html .
Blast. I distinctly remember having seen mbox2maildir scripts there... ah well :(
The mbox converter stuff is at http://www.qmail.org/ -
If you look at the headers from this mailing list you'll see that it uses qmail.
I personally chose qmail because I needed something that fetchmail could connect
to (ie. a mail system listening on port 25 (smtp)).
My original setup was with ssmtp, but the ability to recieve mail directly to
Tim Whitehead proclaimed on mutt-users that:
more flexibility (hence configurability) besides the fact that it claims that it
"makes sendmail obsolete" (http://www.qmail.org).
Everybody claims something or the other ...
-s (tried sendmail 8.11.2 betas lately? they rock)
--
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:24:26PM -0700, Joe Copeland wrote:
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15 instead.
You could try configuring your local sendmail to use
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:29:28PM -0500, Tim Whitehead wrote:
more flexibility (hence configurability) besides the fact that it claims that it
"makes sendmail obsolete" (http://www.qmail.org).
The only sticking point is djb's licensing. He purposely makes it
obtuse and purposely does not
CB proclaimed on mutt-users that:
exactly what I would call easy. I just (and I mean JUST) fixed a
problem where my local sendmail was sending it out with the local
machinename which doesn't resolve externally. As a result, I was
getting a lot of rejects from destination mail servers and
Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
So looks like qmail's advantage of non-root thing is not an advantage anymore, is it ?
:))
igor
On Tue 17 Apr 2001,
Igor Pruchanskiy proclaimed on mutt-users that:
Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
So looks like qmail's advantage of non-root thing is not an
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:37:54PM -0700, Igor Pruchanskiy wrote:
Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
Nice. Only took sendmail a decade or so to figure
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:37:54PM -0700, Igor Pruchanskiy wrote:
So looks like qmail's advantage of non-root thing is not an advantage anymore, is it
? :))
qmail's security advantage (among many others, IMHO!) is not only that
it doesn't run as root: it's that each piece runs as a distinct
31 matches
Mail list logo
