Re: Why doesn't xterm refresh?
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Lance Simmons wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried xterm, rxvt and gnome-terminal, > and am able to reproduce the same problem when paging through the same > emails. Often, when a line from the previous screenful was longer than > the line from the current screen, the characters at the end of the line > remain. It's like the terminal isn't refreshing for each screenful. I > was hoping one of the terminals I have wouldn't have this problem, but > no such luck. what $TERM (and corresponding output from infocmp) do you have? > I've used script, but have to admit I don't have a clue what to make of > the output. The output is all characters that were sent to the screen. If it is cat'd to the screen (I use a program that does it slowly - works fine for xterm, but not for emulators such as rxvt which skip steps). Also, using a utility that converts the escapes to readable form makes it easy to analyze. > Has anyone had this problem and solved it satisfactorily? > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 06:17:21PM -0800, Akkana wrote: > > > > Has the original poster tried several different terminal programs? > > Lance Simmons > -- T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dickey.his.com ftp://dickey.his.com
print command
Hi, I want to customize the print command of Mutt 1.2.5i I use the command: set print_command=... in the muttrc file and it works fine. How can I send the subject of the message as an argument to the program in the print_command variable? Thanks Pedro -- Why don't you try 'Mutt' and 'GnuPG'? Get my public key at http://www.keyserver.net 1024D/7274AA07 9F1F 1EBB 29A4 918D 2C5F FB9C 39C9 7963 7274 AA07 PGP signature
Attachments not deleted over IMAP (Was Re: Wrong "Lines" count in the header after attachment deleted)
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 07:32:21PM +0100, Byrial Jensen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 13:57:44 -0600, Petr Hlustik wrote: > > > > A trivial problem using 1.2i: after I delete an attachment, sometimes the > > index keeps showing huge message size, possibly because the Lines: field in > > the header has not been modified. If I try showing headers and > > edit-message, this field is off limits. Any ideas how to fix this? > > Deletion of attachments marked for deletion will first take place > when you close or sync (by typing $ with default key bindings) the > current mailbox. But then the line count should automatically be > updated; it is a bug if it is not. Actually, it was probably a different issue. Mutt 1.2.5 apparently does not delete attachments when connected over IMAP. The "d" next to message in index disappears when I sync-mailbox but the attachments are still there and, consequently, the Lines still (correctly) show a big number. I'm sorry I did not look more carefully before. Thanks for your help, Petr
Re: Mutt and PGP/MIME - problem with other MUA
Gary, et al -- ...and then Gary said... % Hi Mutt men (and women), % % I have a friend who I have been running tests with on PGP/MIME compliance % with his Eudora v5.0.2. He recieved my encrypted MIME email and his Eudora Ick. % was able to decrypt it without problems. I am using GnuPG with my Mutt % v1.2.5i. Yay! % % Next I sent him an encrypted and signed email with an attachment. Of course % both the email and attachment are automatically encrypted. He could not Right. % read the attachment. According to him, they came up as *.ems attachment Yep. % along with the main message which Eudora could not read (the attachment). % It was a gif attachment. He says that Eudora swears that it is fully % RFC2015 compliant. They lie. It's a documented bug (sorry, I can't specifically recall where, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the archives) that Eudora can't handle both signed and encrypted mail. If you want to encrypt to your pal, you will have to send the mail without signing it. % % Any thoughts Eudora, which sucks a bit less than most PC mail programs, still sucks. % % -- % Best regards, % Gary % % Today's thought: Chaos, panic, pandemonium - my work here is done. I love this, though :-) :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: folder-hook pattern matching
Eugene Lee muttered: > If I had the following mailboxes that all start with the letter 'b': Unfortunately that doesn't help since you cannot not make use of it. > > ~/Mail/bob > ~/Mail/bobby > ~/Mail/info/bricks > ~/Mail/network/tools/bing > > Is it possible to make a single folder-hook pattern that matches all of > these mailboxes? If you want to match exactly these folders: folder-hook =bob|=bobby|=info/bricks|=network/tools/bing '...' assuming you set folder="~/Mail" The regexp matches any sub-string of the whole path. So folder-hook test '...' would match ~/Mail/test as well as /test/Mail/dummy_folder. That's why the =/+ shortcut for $folder is so useful. HTH, Michael -- All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul. PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: folder-hook pattern matching
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Michael Tatge wrote: : Eugene Lee muttered: : > : > If I had the following mailboxes that all start with the letter 'b': : > : > ~/Mail/bob : > ~/Mail/bobby : > ~/Mail/info/bricks : > ~/Mail/network/tools/bing : > : > Is it possible to make a single folder-hook pattern that matches all of : > these mailboxes? : : If you want to match exactly these folders: : : folder-hook =bob|=bobby|=info/bricks|=network/tools/bing '...' : assuming you set folder="~/Mail" That's a pain, because I'd have to modify my folder-hook if these folders were to move around in the filesystem. : The regexp matches any sub-string of the whole path. So : folder-hook test '...' would match ~/Mail/test as well as : /test/Mail/dummy_folder. That's why the =/+ shortcut for $folder is so : useful. But there seems to be no way to match all mailboxes that begin with the letter 'b'. In other words, I can't make a folder-hook perform a match on *only* the mailbox name itself and not the absolute pathname. If there's a way to do this, I'd love to know how. -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp sig. verification issues - md5/sha1 and 1.2 v 1.2.5
So, digging through the archives has shown complaints of this problem before but nothing really solid on the resolution... A) It's been pointed out before that Mutt misassigns the micalg and that this can be forced in .muttrc with set pgp_sign_micalg=pgp-sha1 Is this on the 'to be fixed' list? A') My gnus/emacs using cow-orkers can not verify either my or my other cow-orker's mail without changing the micalg line - http://www.gnus.org/list-archives/ding/200011/msg00237.html says: === This piece of advice should make it possible to verify pgp/mime mail signed with mutt. (Mutt label them as using md5 in calculating the signature, when actually sha1 is used.) (defadvice mml2015-fix-micalg (before jas-mutt-fix) "Replace \"pgp-md5\" with \"pgp-sha1\" if sender uses Mutt." (with-current-buffer gnus-original-article-buffer (goto-char (point-min)) (when (re-search-forward "^User-Agent: Mutt" nil t) (ad-set-arg 0 "pgp-sha1" === B) However, I'm still having problems... On my machine, running 1.2.5i (and pgp6), a piece of mail from a cow-orker comes in and passes through pgp saying: WARNING: Bad signature, doesn't match file contents! Bad signature from user "". Pretty Good Privacy(tm) Version 6.5.2 (c) 1999 Network Associates Inc. Uses the RSAREF(tm) Toolkit, which is copyright RSA Data Security, Inc. Export of this software may be restricted by the U.S. government. On one our central timeshare servers, running 1.2i I get: Warning: Using insecure memory! Good signature from user "". Signature made 2000/11/21 18:25 GMT PGP Command Line for Workstations(tm) Version 7.0 (c) 2000 Network Associates Inc. Uses the BSafe(tm) Toolkit, which is copyright RSA Data Security, Inc. Export of this software may be restricted by the U.S. government. no matter what the micalg is set to. The exact same results happen for him reading my mail. Would anyone be able to make any guesses on whether this is pgp or how mutt deals? B') I can always verify my own signed msgs no matter what the micalg is set to on either version of mutt with either version of pgp. B'') I have NO problems with pgp or gpg signed messages from gnus/emacs using colleagues. Thanks... (If I've missed this discussion groveling around in the mail archives, sorry, but all mail-archive software I've ever seen that isn't just 'grep' in a flatfile (which you then use mutt on...:) sucks...) JB (Note: I /think/ I've got all the failure/success conditions correct... but I can't quite prove it...) -- JB Segal[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Engineer617-250-3649800-606-8292617-283-2675 (Cell) Akamai Technologies, 500 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139 "Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain..." PGP signature
Re: folder-hook pattern matching
At 13:16 -0800 21 Dec 2000, Eugene Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But there seems to be no way to match all mailboxes that begin with the > letter 'b'. In other words, I can't make a folder-hook perform a match > on *only* the mailbox name itself and not the absolute pathname. If > there's a way to do this, I'd love to know how. There's not a way to do that but you might be able to use something like (completely untested): folder-hook (^|/)b[^/]*$ 'set ' That ensures that the "b" is immediately after either the start of the folder name (just in case that somehow gets matched against) or a slash and that there are no slashes between it and the end of the folder name (to make sure it's not some higher level directory which matches). -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/ Criminals today have guns. Soon they will have computers and other weapons of mass destruction. -- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno
Re: Mutt and PGP/MIME - problem with other MUA
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:50:19PM -0500 or thereabouts, David T-G wrote: > % was able to decrypt it without problems. I am using GnuPG with my Mutt > % v1.2.5i. > Yay! Nothing better has been devised > % read the attachment. According to him, they came up as *.ems attachment > Yep. Vely interesting... > They lie. It's a documented bug (sorry, I can't specifically recall > where, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the archives) that Eudora > can't handle both signed and encrypted mail. If you want to encrypt to > your pal, you will have to send the mail without signing it. David, thanks for this info. I have put it in his face! > Eudora, which sucks a bit less than most PC mail programs, still sucks. hee, hee ... > % Today's thought: Chaos, panic, pandemonium - my work here is done. > I love this, though :-) Story of my life -- Best regards, Gary Today's thought: Before you criticize someone walk a mile in his shoes. That way if he gets angry he'll be a mile away -- and barefoot. PGP signature
