Wouldn't it be nice if inc could read a Maildir
format spool? Sure you can write a wrapper or
something, but everybody shouldn't have to.
Before I start hacking, has anyone already
done this?
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.n
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:13:06PM -0400, Scott Schwartz wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice if inc could read a Maildir format spool? Sure
> you can write a wrapper or something, but everybody shouldn't have to.
> Before I start hacking, has anyone already done this?
I don't believe so, but I'm not sur
Hi,
Here's a wishlist item. Not because I think there's someone with the
time to work on it, but because I thought it worth making public;
perhaps someone knows how to already do this.
I keep lots of old emails. Some of those come with attachments, some
large ones. MIME-encoding isn't a space
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's a wishlist item. Not because I think there's someone with the
> time to work on it, but because I thought it worth making public;
> perhaps someone knows how to already do this.
>
> I keep lots of old emails. Some of those come with attachments, some
> large ones. MIME-enco
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:38:20 GMT, Ralph Corderoy said:
> Optionally, the extracted file may be better compressed along the way,
> e.g. an embedded tar file becomes a reference tar.bz2 file if it's
> smaller.
>
> mhstore and a little scripting gets me the first half, it's the editing
> the email t
Jon Steinhart writes:
> Some of you may recall that after improving attachment-sending in nmh, I've
> had some wild ideas about how to improve attachment handling on the reading
> end. What I had been thinking about was to have scan listings report the
> components of multipart messages on separa
Arun writes:
> Hi, I'm just wondering how many people are working on improving
> attachment-sending in nmh. It's definitely an interest of mine, particularly
> sending named attachments, but I haven't done much nmh development yet, so
> I'm sure no one else knows of my interest.
Attachment-sendin
Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
not officially put anywhere.
Scott
___
Nmh-workers mailing l
>> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
>
>WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
>not officially put anywhere.
It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for it.
"Screwed up" is a matter of opinion; I felt it wa
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
> >
> >WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
> >not officially put anywhere.
>
> It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for it.
> "Screwed up"
>Is this 1.1RC3, or something different (such as "1.1 final")?
Look at the download area (http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/nmh/); it
should be obvious.
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nm
Hi,
Ken wrote:
> > Is this 1.1RC3, or something different (such as "1.1 final")?
>
> Look at the download area (http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/nmh/); it
> should be obvious.
For the aid of those without ready Internet access whilst reading their
email the above URL has
nmh-1.1-RC3.tar
Hi Valdis,
> > mhstore and a little scripting gets me the first half, it's the
> > editing the email to change the embedded file into a reference
> > that's the issue.
>
> This *does* break horribly for digital signatures - I suspect that
> both an S/MIME and a PGP signature would be invalidated
Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
> >
> >WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
> >not officially put anywhere.
>
> It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for
I remember a while ago that people were wanting the slocal pattern
matching to be full regular expressions. I still think that is a good idea,
but it's occurred to me that the pattern matching of a maildelivery file
and the search criteria of pick do much the same job, so I'm now thinking
it would
Jon Steinhart wrote:
>Fear of m_getfld has kept me from trying this.
It's not that dreadful, is it? I grant you that it sticks its
hands deep into the guts of the C library in a dreadfully unclean
manner, but if you're just using it it's not too bad.
Is there any consensus for ripping out the cod
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Reicher writes:
> I remember a while ago that people were wanting the slocal pattern
> matching to be full regular expressions. I still think that is a good idea,
> but it's occurred to me that the pattern matching of a maildelivery file
> and the search criteri
OOPS. now you've stepped in it...
Having been through all this before, the first time 25 years ago
when RFC-733 was revised to give RFC-822, and all the
machinations since then...
both the specs and operational reality treat headers as
case-independent. *if* you wish to honor case in heade
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Reicher writes:
>> I remember a while ago that people were wanting the slocal pattern
>> matching to be full regular expressions. I still think that is a good idea,
>> but it's occurred to me that the pattern matching of
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike O'Dell writes:
> OOPS. now you've stepped in it...
:-)
> Having been through all this before, the first time 25 years ago
> when RFC-733 was revised to give RFC-822, and all the
> machinations since then...
>
> both the specs and operational reality trea
i never knew this. it's an amusing hack which makes lotsa sense,
assuming you know about it (grin).
-mo
Norman Shapiro wrote:
Although pick matches a lower case letter in the pattern insensitively, upper
case letters in the pattern match only upper case letters.
Norman Shapiro
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Reicher writes:
> > I remember a while ago that people were wanting the slocal pattern
> > matching to be full regular expressions. I still think that is a good idea,
> > but it's occurred to me that the pattern matching of a maildelivery file
> > and the sear
On 25 December 2005 at 11:02, "Mike O'Dell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norman Shapiro wrote:
> > Although pick matches a lower case letter in the pattern insensitively,
> > upper case letters in the pattern match only upper case letters.
>
> i never knew this. it's an amusing hack which makes lot
> One of the suggestions for mh-format was that we add -script to
> specify a different scripting language than the default. Maybe
> we should think about adding a switch like -regexp or something
> to pick and friends that specifies regular expressions?
pick already does regular expressions, whi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Steinhart writes:
>
> Keep in mind that the RFC's say that message header field names are
> case-insensitive.
Indeed, I missed that important matter. Certainly nmh should follow
standards as nicely as possible. It does not make sense violating
a RFC only beca
On December 26, 2005 at 16:10, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Indeed, I missed that important matter. Certainly nmh should follow
> standards as nicely as possible. It does not make sense violating
> a RFC only because a product (in this case, the email filtering service
> provided by Postini) does. I w
> Jon Steinhart wrote:
> >Fear of m_getfld has kept me from trying this.
>
> It's not that dreadful, is it? I grant you that it sticks its
> hands deep into the guts of the C library in a dreadfully unclean
> manner, but if you're just using it it's not too bad.
>
> Is there any consensus for rip
mts.conf lets one select which smtp server(s) to use for
mail submission, but there's no convenient way of selecting
port 587 instead of 25.
it would be great if one could set the port with the server entry,
e.g. servers: this.one:587
regards
az
--
Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 0xB963BD5F (or
On 25 June 2014 at 18:51, Alexander Zangerl wrote:
>
> mts.conf lets one select which smtp server(s) to use for
> mail submission, but there's no convenient way of selecting
> port 587 instead of 25.
I'm curious, how one would then pass the necessary userid/pw combination.
> it would be great
>mts.conf lets one select which smtp server(s) to use for
>mail submission, but there's no convenient way of selecting
>port 587 instead of 25.
>
>it would be great if one could set the port with the server entry,
>e.g. servers: this.one:587
Sigh. You've got a problem with the -port option? I
>> mts.conf lets one select which smtp server(s) to use for
>> mail submission, but there's no convenient way of selecting
>> port 587 instead of 25.
>
>I'm curious, how one would then pass the necessary userid/pw combination.
I assume you'd do it the same way that you do today (there's been cod
On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Sigh. You've got a problem with the -port option? I understand where
> you're coming from; if someone else wants to write this code, please feel
> free.
We should be using port 587 by default, anyway. I will go ahead and change
that. Whil
32 matches
Mail list logo
