Re: forwarding multiple attachments?
Mon Sep 4 08:25:17 BST 2000 Using e (edit current message as template) on the message you are interested in forwarding will allow you to delete which ever attachments that you're not interested in forwarding. -- -primus On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 06:09:06PM -0700, Austin Schutz wrote: | > | I've been on vacation, sorry for the slow response: | | > Austin -- | > | > ...and then Austin Schutz said... | > % This must be a really dumb question, but how does one forward | > % multiple attachments? tagging them in the 'view attachments' menu | > % doesn't seem to do it. | > | > Do you mean "some but not all attachments from a single message"? Or do | > you just want to attach multiple files to a message? | > | > Since I don't know, 'cuz I don't play much with forwarding pieces, how to | > do the former and I really don't think you mean the latter, I won't | > clutter up the list with a probably useless reply. | > | > | > % I would think that it would be handy to have the default for | > % the regular forward command automagically attach all files for you, or | > % at least ask if you want it to. | > | > Of course, if you just forward the message itself all of the attachments | > will come along with it... | > | | That would be what I would expect, but that's not what happens. When | I forward a message via 'f' only the main body of the message is selected for | forwarding, not any attachments. I've verified that other people observe the | same behavoior. | | Austin
sending attachments and getting them back
Hello! I have to write two shell scripts. One to check a file, and send it via Email to the other script. The second script has to get the attached file back from the Email and install it. The file which is attached is a PGP signed Tarball. It is send via mutt -a files.tar.pgp -s "Subject" [EMAIL PROTECTED] < message.txt Sending the file works fine! On the other side each time the user gets a mail a script is executed which uses metamail to get the file back. Metamail is executed as follow metamail -r -q -x -w /tmp/receivedmail Now my problem :) If I use mutt for sending the file the files created by metamail are only called with temp names beginning with mm. If I use the Netscape Messenger with the file attached, the name after metamail is correct. I need a correct naming for working with the file. Its hard for me to find the pgp tempfile and rename it an so on... This is the MUTT-Header of the received Email: >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 31 13:55:39 2000 Received: (from burgsth@localhost) by dawsobr.tronicplanet.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id NAA01325 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:55:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:55:12 +0200 From: Thomas Burgstaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Virus user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Virus-DAT-Files Update Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Die angehaengten Daten sind fuer das Update des Virenscanners notwendig --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dat-files.tar.pgp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 --- --- --- This is the Netscape-Header of the received Email: >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 31 14:01:52 2000 Received: from tronicplanet.de (burgsth@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dawsobr.tronicplanet.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id OAA01406 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:01:28 +0200 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:01:27 +0200 From: Thomas Burgstaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Tronicplanet Datendienst GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="17FB9875B8174B98B316AA45" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --17FB9875B8174B98B316AA45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --17FB9875B8174B98B316AA45 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="dat-files.tar.pgp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dat-files.tar.pgp" Thank you Thomas
Re: From: line shows recipients domain name
Sitting at the campfire, André Dahlqvist told: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 08:40:59PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre' Dahlqvist) > > set envelope_from > > But in what cases should one have to use that? I mean what I'm using > now seams to work almost all the time too. Let me explain. My From: line shows Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but my local address is my_username@my_hostname. That works, too, but my mail is beeing delivered to a central mail server un the campus. So I have this From: line to point to another mail account. > Btw, how come some people prefer to write the name inside parenthesis > like that, and some prefer to have the address inside < > and the name > before it? That's a tough one. Why do some people prefer red wine and some other like white wine? I don't think there is a standard for it. Greets Kai -- Kai Blin(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Webmaster Inst. of Human Genetics Dept. of Molecular Genetics Wilhelmstr 27 phone (49)7071-2974890 D 72074 Tuebingen, Germany fax (49)7071-295233 http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/thm/molgen/molgen.html Do molecular biologists wear designer genes? -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/CS d- s++: a--- C++ UL P+> L+++ E W+++$ N+ w---@ O- M-@ PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5-- X- R+ tv b+++ DI+ D+ G e* y? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Re: Custom signatures
Using a large mallet, Subba Rao whacked out: > I would like to be able to send messages to some people with customized > signatures and for some I want a trimmed down signature file. > Is there anyway to be able to select from a list of signature files for > a message? Use folder hooks / send hooks, or manually insert the appropriate .sig into your editor. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis mallet @ cluestick.org + Lumber Cartel of India, tinlcI *** NEWSFLASH *** Russian tanks steamrolling through New Jersey Details at eleven!
Re: changes in 1.2.x
Ken W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sun, 03 Sep 2000: > Hi. I just upgraded from 1.0 to 1.2.5 and notice that mutt does not > insert by default the x-mailer header. I didn't see this in the > upgrade readme. Is this intentional? Yes. Mutt now creates the User-Agent header instead of X-Mailer. User-Agent is preferred over X-Mailer. > Also, Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I notice in my tmp > directory A LOT of .bak files made by mutt. They look like emails I > have sent. All text files. Why are these here and if they are temp > files, why are they not deleted after the mail is sent? If it makes > any difference, I use vim as my text editor. It sounds like whenever you edit an email message text with vim, and save and exit, vim creates a backup copy of the original. Mutt knows to delete the temporary file from /tmp (containing the real text) but it can't know about the backup copies created by your editor. The solution is to configure vim not to create backups of edited files. I believe it's: :set nobackup If you want to normally have backups, then you need a default configuration and a configuration just for editing emails. Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / "The steady state of disks is full." -- Ken Thompson
Re: changes in 1.2.x
On 2000-09-03 23:28:07 -0400, Ken W wrote: > Hi. I just upgraded from 1.0 to 1.2.5 and notice that mutt does > not insert by default the x-mailer header. I didn't see this in > the upgrade readme. Is this intentional? It was renamed to User-Agent. > Also, Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I notice in my tmp > directory A LOT of .bak files made by mutt. They look like > emails I have sent. All text files. Why are these here and if > they are temp files, why are they not deleted after the mail is > sent? If it makes any difference, I use vim as my text editor. I'd suppose these files are created by your editor. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: changes in 1.2.x
On Mon, Sep 4, 2000, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > Yes. Mutt now creates the User-Agent header instead of X-Mailer. > User-Agent is preferred over X-Mailer. Ah, thanks. > It sounds like whenever you edit an email message text with vim, and > save and exit, vim creates a backup copy of the original. Mutt knows > to delete the temporary file from /tmp (containing the real text) but > it can't know about the backup copies created by your editor. > > The solution is to configure vim not to create backups of edited files. > I believe it's: :set nobackup > > If you want to normally have backups, then you need a default > configuration and a configuration just for editing emails. That was it, thanks, Mikko. I never set it, and vim help says that writebackup and nobackup is default. I looked at the settings and sure enough for some reason backup was set. Someone must have rebuilt vim on the server setting that. -Ken
Re: Custom signatures
On 0, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Using a large mallet, Subba Rao whacked out: > > > I would like to be able to send messages to some people with customized > > signatures and for some I want a trimmed down signature file. > > Is there anyway to be able to select from a list of signature files for > > a message? > > Use folder hooks / send hooks, or manually insert the appropriate .sig > into your editor. > Thanks for your suggestion. Can you please send me a sample of setting folder hooks? Do I have to be in that folder to have that specific signature? Sometimes I am in the DEFAULT folder but would like to send mail to mutt with a different signature? Can I do this without changing to the different folder? -- Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/ => Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <= http://www.smcinnovations.com
Re: Custom signatures
Hi Subba Rao ! On Sat 02 Sep 2000 (09:26), you muttered on the list: > I would like to be able to send messages to some people with customized > signatures and for some I want a trimmed down signature file. > > Is there anyway to be able to select from a list of signature files for > a message? It's not in mutt, but you could use muttprofile (http://www.iki.fi/martti.rahkila/mutt/) or write a shell script to suit your needs .. Grtz, Nils PGP signature
flock vs fcntl and general nfs headaches
Hello people, Thanks again for your help with the pine-like "expunge" a couple weeks back. I now have some questions regarding flock and fcntl. My current arrangement is; Box B has an nfs share with users home directories. Box A receives email with sendmail. Box A has the nfs share from B mounted. As mail arrives, Box A processe a user procmail script (which actually resides on B but the process runs on A) seperating out email for the user into various folders. Box A and B are redhat 6.0 running 2.2.14 and 2.2.16 respectively. I am using mutt 1.2i, compiled from source by me all the default options. Later when I (the user) would run mutt from Box A, I would get mutt errors that a mailbox "folder" (actually a file) could not be locked and that it was read only. In my kernel messages on Box A I would get the following message several times: Box_A kernel: lockd: failed to monitor 192.168.1.5 I finally got some time to play with this today, and recompiled mutt with "--enable-flock --disable-fcntl"... now I can delete email in folders!!! ... however I still get the kernel messages in my logs. So, I am asking... - why would one choose flock or fcntl? - could there be some negative repercussions from my current selection? - any other insights on how to correct/stop these nfs locking errors? thanks, donfede
Re: flock vs fcntl and general nfs headaches
Federico Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 04 Sep 2000: > - why would one choose flock or fcntl? I don't know the details about the locking methods, but I guess there isn't really any technical reason to prefer either flock, fcntl or dotlock over another. The most important thing is that both your MDA (mail delivery agent, in this case procmail) and your MUA (mail user agent, Mutt) are using the same locking mechanism. And also, any other program that accesses your email should use the same kind of locking too. If the locking methods are not the same, then you risk mail folder corruption. The problem is that over NFS, locking has been traditionally very unreliable. Apparently still is. > - could there be some negative repercussions from my current selection? Well, it depends what kind of locking procmail uses. If procmail uses fcntl and Mutt is configured to use flock, you might as well not be running any locking at all. > - any other insights on how to correct/stop these nfs locking errors? Yes. I recommend you stop using mbox and start using Maildir. After that, you won't need to worry about locking at all on your NFS-mounted folders. Maildir has been designed especially for NFS-mounted folders and doesn't require locking to be safe. With Maildir, you can just ignore the file locking-over-NFS headaches. Mutt supports Maildir natively, and so does the latest version of procmail (3.14). Regards, Mikko PS. Please set "use_domain" in your .muttrc, or teach your MTA to also rewrite your address in the Mail-Followup-To header. -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Be nice to other people. They outnumber you 6 billion to one.
