-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
> the procmail recipe seems to work fine
Except it doesn't. if the mail has an attachment. It no work good.
:) I have a lot of Pine-using friends, and this is what happens when
they send me a
Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
>
> > I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail. But in my
> > eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA.
> It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_
> your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;)
Sure. "D" like in "delivery". B
Alas! Volker Moell spake thus:
> I'm honesty, I don't have much knowledge about procmail. But in my
> eyes it's *not* the job of the MDA.
It makes sense to me that the mail _delivery_ agent ought to _deliver_
your mail into the mboxes that you want them in ;)
--
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTE
Volker --
...and then Volker Moell said...
%
% David T-G wrote:
% >
% > *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now
% > it hasn't been a concern.
%
% I thought I read about the whole "Problems with PGP mails from Outlook"
% more often in the last months.
Right.
Volker Moell wrote:
>
> The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp
> variable.
sure. but according to the many previous discussions of this, there have
been problems with getting this to work. so when you send a patch to
the mutt-dev list that works, i'm sure they'll be
Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>
> procmail or other MDAs will always be able to do it better, because they're
> looking at the message in exactly the right way at exactly the right time.
> With Mutt you're always going to have this effect not stick with the
> message (so you have to do it every time), yo
David T-G wrote:
>
> *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now
> it hasn't been a concern.
I thought I read about the whole "Problems with PGP mails from Outlook"
more often in the last months.
> Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros? These
Brian --
...and then Brian Clark said...
%
% * David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 24. 2002 10:00]:
%
% > ...and then Brian Clark said...
%
% > % I was trying to get something similar to work yesterday. No one
% > % finds it odd that one can't check a single signature? I've given
...
% > I thin
* Jeremy Blosser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 24. 2002 18:34]:
> On Jan 24, Brian Clark [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > OK, maybe I'm not getting something about GnuPG and/or Mutt's
> > interaction with GnuPG, then (Nope, not being sarcastic here). If
> > I set this thing to verify all signatures, an
On Jan 24, Brian Clark [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> OK, maybe I'm not getting something about GnuPG and/or Mutt's
> interaction with GnuPG, then (Nope, not being sarcastic here). If I set
> this thing to verify all signatures, and I have my keyserver settings in
> place, every single key that I ve
* David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 24. 2002 10:00]:
> ...and then Brian Clark said...
> % I was trying to get something similar to work yesterday. No one
> % finds it odd that one can't check a single signature? I've given
> % up, and just set pgp_verify_sig to ask-no, but I have to hit Enter
At some point hitherto, Jeremy Blosser hath spake thusly:
> > IIRC, recently someone posted a macro that would essentially perform
> > Esc-P on every message in a folder. I spent the morning combing
> > through the archives, but I couldn't find it.
>
> ~A~A
>
> It needs at the appropriate plac
On Jan 24, Derek D. Martin [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> At some point hitherto, David T-G hath spake thusly:
> > Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two
> > different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and
> > on-demand verifying (accomplished through va
At some point hitherto, David T-G hath spake thusly:
> Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two
> different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and
> on-demand verifying (accomplished through various macros). Can you
> confirm or deny?
Related to this:
On Jan 24, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Volker, et al --
> % the last five months I read mutt-users this problem came up several
> % times. Lots of mutt-users post their (more or less) complicated macros
> % which always have their disadvantages. Ok, it seems not to me mutt's
> % philos
Volker, et al --
...and then Volker Moell said...
%
% [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% >
% > Then I sugest you to use:
% >
% > macro pager \cv "set
pgp_verify_sig\nunset pgp_verify_sig\n" "Check
PGP sig"
%
% One question: Why isn't there a general solution for this FAQ (sic!)? In
*This* questio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Then I sugest you to use:
>
> macro pager \cv "set
>pgp_verify_sig\nunset pgp_verify_sig\n" "Check
>PGP sig"
One question: Why isn't there a general solution for this FAQ (sic!)? In
the last five months I read mutt-users this problem came up several
times. Lots
On Jan 24, Brian Clark [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Jan 24. 2002 07:26]:
> I was trying to get something similar to work yesterday. No one finds it
> odd that one can't check a single signature? I've given up, and just set
> pgp_verify_sig to ask-no, but I have to hit Enter tw
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Brian Clark wrote:
> No one finds it odd that one can't check a single signature?
I find it strange... :)
> I've given up, and just set
> pgp_verify_sig to ask-no, but I have to hit Enter twice when entering a
> message. I'd rather set it to 'no' and se
Brian, et al --
...and then Brian Clark said...
%
% * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Jan 24. 2002 07:26]:
%
% > Works well, although 'toggle pgp_verify_sig' works better, like
...
%
% I was trying to get something similar to work yesterday. No one finds it
% odd that one can't check a single signature? I'
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Jan 24. 2002 07:26]:
[...]
> Works well, although 'toggle pgp_verify_sig' works better, like
> somebody in this thread has noticed. On the other hand when I'm in a
> pager I still have to leave current message and then enter it again
> to check sign - but never mind, I have
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:28:41AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> That's interesting... What gives with the check-trad bit, I wonder,
> since it's *after* one displays the message. I think that that can go.
I don't know - I'm not a mutt guru, I've just ripped it from somebody :)
> macro index ,@v
Nicolas, et al --
...and then Nicolas Rachinsky said...
%
% * On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:28:41AM -0500,
% * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% > macro index ,@veron "set pgp_verify_sig\n;macro index \\cu
,@veroff 'Toggle PGP verification'\n"
% > macro index ,@veroff "unset pgp_verify_si
* On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:28:41AM -0500,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> macro index ,@veron "set pgp_verify_sig\n;macro index \\cu ,@veroff
>'Toggle PGP verification'\n"
> macro index ,@veroff "unset pgp_verify_sig\n;macro index \\cu
>,@veron 'Toggle PGP verification'\n"
> mac
Adam --
...and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
%
% On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:36:52PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
% > I don't know about the macro you found, but it seems that either a toggle
% > macro (the same keystroke(s) to turn things on and off) or a macro that
%
% it looks like this (a bit cl
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:36:52PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> I don't know about the macro you found, but it seems that either a toggle
> macro (the same keystroke(s) to turn things on and off) or a macro that
it looks like this (a bit clumsy imho):
macro pager V "set
pgp_verify_sig\nunset
pgp_
Adam --
...and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
%
% On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:32:49AM +0100, René Clerc wrote:
% > > that I'm not getting the little 's' flag in the index and I don't seem
% > > to be able to validate the signiture in anyway.
% > Check out:
% > Pcheck-traditional-p
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:32:49AM +0100, René Clerc wrote:
> > that I'm not getting the little 's' flag in the index and I don't seem
> > to be able to validate the signiture in anyway.
> Check out:
> Pcheck-traditional-pgp
Ok, and how about validating 'normal' (mime) signatures
* On 21-01-02 at 09:37
* René Clerc said
> * Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [21-01-2002 09:23]:
>
> > I've been noticing that when Mutt encounters a clearsigned pgp signiture
> > that I'm not getting the little 's' flag in the index and I don't seem
> > to be able to validate the signitur
* Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [21-01-2002 09:23]:
> I've been noticing that when Mutt encounters a clearsigned pgp signiture
> that I'm not getting the little 's' flag in the index and I don't seem
> to be able to validate the signiture in anyway.
Check out:
Pcheck-tradition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all
I've been noticing that when Mutt encounters a clearsigned pgp signiture
that I'm not getting the little 's' flag in the index and I don't seem
to be able to validate the signiture in anyway.
What's all that about then?
Many thanks
- --
Nic
31 matches
Mail list logo
