* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020829]:
> Markus Nißl wrote:
> >
> > I will do so! Thanks again.
> >
> > BTW: no "cc:" to my address necessary, I'm subscribed to this
> > list for a year now.
>
> well you're the one who has:
> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Nißl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [E
On 19:44 29 Aug 2002, krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| There are good guys and
| there are bad guys. Why make it easier for the bad guys to be bad?
Because it makes it easier for the good guys to be good.
Misinformation is BAD. It's won't prevent bad guys from hacking you,
and it WILL prevent
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
> you can always try but it has been my experience that these people
> don't want to change to anything other than M$. if your boss is still
> semi technical this might work; however, if he has gone totally over
> to the dark side of management, he
Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> tell your boss you don't have time for reformatting
> his %$!@# mails because you have *work* to do!
> if he wants you tos end better emails then this
> will take *time* and this has to be *paid* for.
Better yet, the OP should tell him he won't break hi
* Keith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:45]:
> Thank you for the flame. It's the first one I've
> received since being on this list for less than a day.
you are welcome - "Keith"!
> +-- On 30082002 01:01:13 +, Sven Guckes uttered:
> | * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
> | >
* Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:49]:
> > then why help him enjoy that you spend your time fixing up
> > your messages to suit the needs of his broken mailer?
> > i mean - does he *pay* you for this kind of work? extra?
> actually, he does; although, he may not know it. :-
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:44:51PM -0400, krjw wrote:
> Thank you for the flame. It's the first one I've received since being
> on this list for less than a day.
you'll have to excuse sven and you don't really want to antagonize
him. he knows a lot about mutt. lighten up. it's all good. btw
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:37:30AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:29]:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:21:53AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> > > if your boss behaves stupid and you play along - does that help?
> > > who will suffer in the end? exa
Thank you for the flame. It's the first one I've received since being
on this list for less than a day.
+-- On 30082002 01:01:13 +, Sven Guckes uttered:
| * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
| > As for version numbers, there's nothing wrong with them
| > unless they are advertised
* Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:29]:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:21:53AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> > if your boss behaves stupid and you play along - does that help?
> > who will suffer in the end? exactly - both you and your boss.
> depends on your point of view. most
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:21:53AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Sven Guckes wrote:
> > the problem is that M$ does not play according to the rules.
> > it's time to give up compatibility with them and let them
> > feel that they are using bad software. let *them* suffer!
>
> * Peter T. Abplanal
* Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:13]:
> > * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
> > > As for version numbers, there's nothing wrong with them
> > > unless they are advertised to potentially malicious users.
> > > Assuming a given version of a given MUA has a known s
* Sven Guckes wrote:
> the problem is that M$ does not play according to the rules.
> it's time to give up compatibility with them and let them
> feel that they are using bad software. let *them* suffer!
* Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:08]:
> while i agree with your senti
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:01:13AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
> > As for version numbers, there's nothing wrong with them
> > unless they are advertised to potentially malicious users.
> > Assuming a given version of a given MUA has a known security
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:55:18AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Michael Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 17:26]:
> > At work, I use Linux and have been using Mutt and Sylpheed.
> > Yesterday, my boss complained about the format of my e-mails.
> > So to make him happy, I have developed
> > a
* krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
> As for version numbers, there's nothing wrong with them
> unless they are advertised to potentially malicious users.
> Assuming a given version of a given MUA has a known security
> hole, sending a mail via that MUA with a header containing
> versio
* Michael Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 17:26]:
> At work, I use Linux and have been using Mutt and Sylpheed.
> Yesterday, my boss complained about the format of my e-mails.
> So to make him happy, I have developed
> an attribution string that mimics Outlook.
ask him why he is using a ma
Doh again. Geeze this is two doh's in one day. Yes you are correct.
It does work. I didn't realize that mutt had to be told explicitly
about each of the sub-maildirs.
*sigh* is it friday yet?
Thanks again.
krjw.
+-- On 29082002 16:20:55 +, Peter T. Abplanalp uttered:
| On Thu, Aug 29
* Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 22:17]:
> Michael Tatge wrote:
> > Patrick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> >> I am unable while in pager mode to use the tag-prefix (;)
> >> operator to perform operations on tag-selected e-mails.
> >> Requires changing to the 'index' menu for use.
>
* On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, John Iverson wrote:
> It seems like what is needed is something like a
> command in addition to the
(The correct command name is .)
> I guess you could create a macro to do something close to this
> by switching to a non-mailbox folder and then issuing a
> "?" to get to
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:00:30PM -0400, krjw wrote:
> +-- On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
> | * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
> |
> | > 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
> | > maildirs? I've never seen extended maildirs 'til
Michael Tatge wrote:
> Patrick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
>> I am unable while in pager mode to use the tag-prefix (;) operator to
>> perform operations on tag-selected e-mails. Requires changing to the
>> 'index' menu for use.
> Yeah, so what? Comeon is that such a hard thing to do?
Perhap
Markus Nißl wrote:
>
> I will do so! Thanks again.
>
> BTW: no "cc:" to my address necessary, I'm subscribed to this
> list for a year now.
well you're the one who has:
Mail-Followup-To: Markus Nißl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
set.
perhaps you want 'subscribe mutt-users' in
krjw wrote:
> On 29082002 12:04:04 +, Will Yardley uttered:
>> krjw wrote:
>>> On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
>>> * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
> 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
> maildirs? I've never seen ex
Hi David!
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 08:35:31PM -0700, David Ellement wrote:
> On 020828, at 22:31:13, Markus Nißl wrote
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:48:17PM -0400, David T-G wrote:
> > > And the conversion isn't necessary now because you can
> > > recognize an old-style message with esc-P [...]
>
Hey Gregor!
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 11:33:20PM +0200, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> * Markus Nißl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [27. Aug. 2002]:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 06:21:52PM +0200, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> > > > Well, do I have to use that gpg-2comp in order to use gpg
> > > > with mutt?
>
Hello Justin!
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 06:06:38PM -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote:
>
> > > S/MIME? Don't you mean PGP/MIME?
> >
> > Well, I only copied that part from Justin's tutorial.
>
> Oops! I will fix that in the revision (when I get it out...)
Okay. At the end of your tutorial, you refer
+-- On 29082002 16:54:29 +, John P Verel uttered:
|
| I start vim thusly: set editor ="vim +/^$ +'set nobackup' -c 'normal
| o' -c startinsert" This puts me at a new line below the first non
| blank line, in insert mode. If you like, simply change 'normal o' to
| 'normal i' to omit the addit
* On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, John Keniry wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Martin Man wrote:
>
> > filename), with mailbox you have to grep for '^Status: O' to
> > see which messages are unread, and this could be quite CPU
> > intensive, IMHO that's why it's still left out of mutt, wou
+-- On 29082002 12:04:04 +, Will Yardley uttered:
| krjw wrote:
| > +-- On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
| > | * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
|
| >>> 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
| >>> maildirs? I've never seen extende
+-- On 29082002 12:05:50 +, Will Yardley uttered:
| krjw wrote:
| >
| > The my_hdr command is handy, but appears to allow only the addition of
| > headers that mutt doesn't already add to mail. From what I've seen over
| > the past 2 days of using mutt, if my_hdr is used to add a header that
On 08/29/02 12:16 -0400, darren chamberlain wrote:
> > 3) [this is a vim question; don't shoot me :)] I've seen mutts start up
> > vim as their editor like "vim -c ':0;/^$'" which I understand puts the
> > cursor on the first empty line. Any way to place it at the end of the
> > file (eg, las
On Aug 29, Michael Herman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> At work, I use Linux and have been using Mutt and Sylpheed.
> Yesterday, my boss complained about the format of my e-mails. So to
> make him happy, I have developed an attribution string that mimics
> Outlook.
Yes, I have to do the same. :(
krjw wrote:
>
> The my_hdr command is handy, but appears to allow only the addition of
> headers that mutt doesn't already add to mail. From what I've seen over
> the past 2 days of using mutt, if my_hdr is used to add a header that
> mutt already adds, said header is simply added twice. For ex
krjw wrote:
> +-- On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
> | * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
>>> 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
>>> maildirs? I've never seen extended maildirs 'till I started using
>>> maildrop, but they're kinky.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:25:54PM -0400, Michael Herman wrote:
> How can I tell Mutt not to replace the tabs with > in the pager or as
> I'm replying to e-mails? I would like to use a folder-hook if
> possible.
I don't think mutt's pager is adding those >'s. At least I've never
heard of or se
Greets once again.
The my_hdr command is handy, but appears to allow only the addition of
headers that mutt doesn't already add to mail. From what I've seen over
the past 2 days of using mutt, if my_hdr is used to add a header that
mutt already adds, said header is simply added twice. For examp
+-- On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
| * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
|
| > 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
| > maildirs? I've never seen extended maildirs 'till I started using
| > maildrop, but they're kinky. They allow f
At work, I use Linux and have been using Mutt and Sylpheed.
Yesterday, my boss complained about the format of my e-mails. So to
make him happy, I have developed an attribution string that mimics
Outlook.
folder-hook $HOME/Mail/Mail-Work/* 'set attribution="\n\n-Original
Message-\nFrom: %
Patrick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> I am unable while in pager mode to use the tag-prefix (;) operator to
> perform operations on tag-selected e-mails. Requires changing to the
> 'index' menu for use.
Yeah, so what? Comeon is that such a hard thing to do?
Michael
--
"Are [Linux users] lemm
* krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
> Greetings, mutts.
Yo.
> 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
> maildirs? I've never seen extended maildirs 'till I started using
> maildrop, but they're kinky. They allow for folders-within-folders
> which is very han
Greetings, mutts. I am new to mutt but old to linux; I've made the
mistake of using pine up till now (past, oh, 8 years). Ug. Mutt has
shown me the light. Just for the record, I despise pine because of
their lack of willingness to support the Maildir format. Slackers, I
say, slackers. Anyway
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Martin Man wrote:
> filename), with mailbox you have to grep for '^Status: O' to see which
> messages are unread, and this could be quite CPU intensive, IMHO that's why it's
> still left out of mutt, would be nice to be able to switch it on/off on demand
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:22:25AM -0400, darren chamberlain wrote:
> Ouch, that's a lot of work. I think this will do it:
>
> fcc-save-hook . +%O
>
> The . applies the hook to all messages, and the %O turns into the
> before-the-@ part of the recipient address.
Cool! I didn't known this (w
I am unable while in pager mode to use the tag-prefix (;) operator to
perform operations on tag-selected e-mails. Requires changing to the
'index' menu for use.
I find no indication of this in the manual or 'man muttrc', other than
the description of 'auto_tag' which indicates the 'index menu' m
* Richard P. Groenewegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 09:07]:
> I have just converted a friend from using pine to mutt.
Nice.
> But there is still one features he misses and I would feel stupid
> saying: `well, this is nog the way we do things in mutt.'
I love that game. :)
> When he replie
Hi,
I have just converted a friend from using pine to mutt. But there is
still one features he misses and I would feel stupid saying: `well,
this is nog the way we do things in mutt.'
When he replies to
someguy@somewhere
he wants the outgoing email to be saved in =someguy. I thought abou
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:38:33PM -0700, John Iverson wrote:
> * On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Will Yardley wrote:
> >
> > with mbox, it doesn't show up as having new mail again until
> > new new mail arrives.
>
> So I guess we should consider this a design limitation?
well that depends on your point of
* Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-28 10:15:48 +0100]:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote:
> > Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA?
> > Just haven't found it yet, or...?
> >
> Probably because it's useless for quite a number of
49 matches
Mail list logo
