Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:54:16PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> color header ^dispo... color1 color2
that is what I currently do, but you cannot call this a notification.
In fact it is nothing more then a mark. And so its a workaround again.
> One action: macro(s).
Well, you are right that this e
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
I don't know whats those 'many other', but mutt does support nearly all
common email features I am aware off. It even supports Delivery Status
Notifications that are (as far as I can see that) less wideley supported
and therefo
On 2007-10-17, Stephan Seitz wrote
> What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your
> concern if and when a user reads your mail.
Mr. Schoenfeld has stated several times in this thread that he is trying
to respond to requests for a return receipt from his *customers*.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> >I don't know whats those 'many other', but mutt does support nearly all
> >common email features I am aware off. It even supports Delivery Status
> >Notification
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> But DSNs are the way to go. The server should send the notification that it
how can you define whats the way to go, if I can show you a usecase were this
is exactly isn't whats needed neither whats wanted?
It has been said a lo
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:10:22AM -0700, David Ellement wrote:
> Mr. Schoenfeld has stated several times in this thread that he is trying
> to respond to requests for a return receipt from his *customers*. It is
> his concern that his customers be satisfied.
Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. It
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:04:34PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid
> > waste of work. If the maintainers don't want to maintain the code,
> > then they probably should stop
Hi everyone,
I have a self configured mutt 1.5.16 with encryption via gpgme:
-CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_PGP -CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_SMIME
+CRYPT_BACKEND_GPGME
That works fine despite of this bug: http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2913
I noticed today that there is no "encrypt to self" functionality
Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being able to say, "Mutt can do that, if you write a script to do it,
> and write a macro to invoke the script and..." does not constitute
> support for a feature in Mutt.
Not sure why not. The particular script or hook in question is trivially
simple --
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > Being able to say, "Mutt can do that, if you write a script to do it,
> > and write a macro to invoke the script and..." does not constitute
> > support for a feature in Mutt.
>
> Not sure why not. The particular script or
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:52:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Actually, one of the things that makes mutt suck less than other MUAs is that
> it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of little-used "features" to cause
> bloat, bugs, user confusion, and UI complication for no real added benefit.
>
Since I couldn't find one I created Mutt Quick Reference v1.0 (PDF file)
especially useful for new users.
It is just two pages reference and looks best when you print it on a
Color Printer.
I wanted to add a link to MuttWiki but I think it is locked.
Anyhow, you can view it and download it from:
Hi,
Derek I can only agree with you in everything you wrote.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:52AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Actually I think this is a fine example of why that argument is total
> nonsense. Since SMTP support has been added, in what measurable way
> has it caused Mutt to suck mo
> What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your
> concern if and when a user reads your mail. Such a feature should never be
> part of mutt. Besides if you are sending a mail to more than one recipient
> or an alias, you will get a notification from every recipient.
Quoting Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of
your concern if and when a user reads your mail.
Such a feature should never be part of mutt.
It is not of the sender's concern _only_ when the recipient says so.
The recipient _
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 12:17:08 -0400 -=
> The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly
> differently, often in ways that we never think of.
>
> So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental?
If nobody does, where should moral come from?
If somebody does, why is a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > In fact, I couldn't care less about mail receipts myself on a
> > technical level. The reason I got involved in this debate is
> > because I can't agree that a tool should decide whether a feature
> > is socially appropriate or not for its
=- Patrick Schoenfeld wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 9:50:41 +0200 -=
> > color header ^dispo... color1 color2
>
> that is what I currently do, but you cannot call this a
> notification. In fact it is nothing more then a mark. And so its a
> workaround again.
Hum... now we are at preference level an
=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 15:22:41 -0400 -=
> Taking this argument to extremes, Mutt can contain *NO CODE* and that
> argument still applies. The user is still free to implement whatever
> missing features he wants, using shell scripts to glue together
> self-written programs and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-17-07 09:51]:
> Actually, one of the things that makes mutt suck less than other MUAs
> is that it *doesn't* have additional hundreds of little-used
> "features" to cause bloat, bugs, user confusion, and UI com
On 10/17/07 15:37, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[snip]
> > As a related example, I'm still disappointed SMTP support got added.
>
> agreed, repetition of a function already provided by default
> installation of all linux distros that I am familiar. It's akin to
> including an editor, html browser, pic
Quoting Rado S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 12:17:08 -0400 -=
The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly
differently, often in ways that we never think of.
So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental?
If nobody does, where should moral com
=- David Champion wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 10:42:41 -0500 -=
> If your business environment requires MDN replies, then the upshot
> is that mutt is regarded as unacceptable in the business
> environment. Nobody wins.
Depends on what you want to achieve: do we want mutt to be
acceptable in the bu
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
>> If nobody does, where should moral come from?
>> If somebody does, why is anyone more qualified than the other?
>> If all are the same, why not the coder(s)?
>
> Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
> code thei
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:13:11AM -0600, Joseph wrote:
> Since I couldn't find one I created Mutt Quick Reference v1.0 (PDF file)
> especially useful for new users.
> #Joseph
> GPG KeyID: ED0E1FB7
Thanks, I'm not new user, but I'll use
the guide.
Tom
On 17.10.2007 (09:13), Joseph wrote:
> Since I couldn't find one I created Mutt Quick Reference v1.0 (PDF file)
> especially useful for new users.
Excellent work!
> If you would like me to add/expand some entires with additional
> information just let me know.
As for mutt-internal stuff, I do
On 10/18/07 00:47, Eyolf ?strem wrote:
> On 17.10.2007 (09:13), Joseph wrote:
> > Since I couldn't find one I created Mutt Quick Reference v1.0 (PDF file)
> > especially useful for new users.
>
> Excellent work!
Thanks.
>
> > If you would like me to add/expand some entires with additional
>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 07:33:46AM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:04:34PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:32:00PM EDT, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid
> > > waste of work. If the maintainers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-17-07 19:47]:
> I would be interested in mairix as well as I'm using maildir format.
jfyi, mairix now also works with mbox files :^)
- --
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
http
Hi,
I just finished setting up mairix, and it seems pretty good. In particular, I
like the feature that I can view flagged messages from all the mailboxes in one
list. One feature that I think would be nice to have, is the ability to make
the changes to the flag stick to the original mailbox. F
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:06PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> =- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
> >
> > Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
> > code their ideology into it. (well as far as software tools are
> > concerned)
>
> Why is that so?
> It's
I just installed Mairix, and the program works fine, except that I don't
seem to be able to access the mfolder from within Mutt. When I do a
search Mairix creates the requiste "mfolder" containing cur, new, and
tmp, and the result of the search is placed in the "new" subdirectory.
But I am unable
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-17-07 19:47]:
> > I would be interested in mairix as well as I'm using maildir format.
>
> jfyi, mairix now also works with mbox files :^)
How does mairix integrate with Mutt?
I am very interested, but does it work with Cyrus?
/jonas
33 matches
Mail list logo
