Re: Defanged HTML headers [WAS: Re: [Announce] Mutt 1.3.28 (BETA) is out.]

[Cedric Duval]

John Buttery said:
> * "Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-18 08:43:58 -0800]:
> >all I get at this page is the following:
> >
> >URL="http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/";>
> >
> >that is displayed in NS 6.2.1 (solaris).
> 
>   You have a proxy server that is "defanging" tags for you (to protect
> from malicious META headers, Javascript, yadda yadda).

Really, is there some content that could be seen as "malicious" in this
page?

It passes all W3C validator checks, and there is no javascript, so there
should be no problem (here, at least, it works well with Mozilla 0.9.8,
NS 4.7, Dillo and lynx)

> -- 
> 
>  John Buttery
>  (Web page temporarily unavailable)
> 

That's what I thought at first: a temporary overloaded server.  ;)
But you're right, it must be a proxy problem on Carl's side. (and it is
merely OT here)

-- 
Cédric

FYI: Snapshots fixed.

[Thomas Roessler]

The "stable" snapshot availble from ftp.mutt.org/pub/mutt/snapshots/ 
is now taken from the pre-1.4 branch.
-- 
Thomas Roessler<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Defanged HTML headers [WAS: Re: [Announce] Mutt 1.3.28 (BETA) is out.]

[John Buttery]

* Cedric Duval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 09:43:57 +0100]:
>John Buttery said:
>> * "Carl B. Constantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-18 08:43:58 -0800]:
>> >all I get at this page is the following:
>> >
>> >URL="http://cedricduval.free.fr/mutt/";>
>> >
>> >that is displayed in NS 6.2.1 (solaris).
>> 
>>   You have a proxy server that is "defanging" tags for you (to protect
>> from malicious META headers, Javascript, yadda yadda).
>
>Really, is there some content that could be seen as "malicious" in this
>page?
>
>It passes all W3C validator checks, and there is no javascript, so there
>should be no problem (here, at least, it works well with Mozilla 0.9.8,
>NS 4.7, Dillo and lynx)
>
>That's what I thought at first: a temporary overloaded server.  ;)
>But you're right, it must be a proxy problem on Carl's side. (and it is
>merely OT here)

  Well, the heuristic is probably "any meta tag".  :)  But yeah, that's
what it is.  I have a procmail-based filter that does the same thing to
HTML email; that's how I recognized it.  It disables potentially
dangerous code by changing its leading tag to DEFANGED_*.

-- 

 John Buttery
 (Web page temporarily unavailable)




msg25707/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: New Mail While In The Mailbox List View

[Jerome De Greef]

* Dean Richard Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> First time poster, so please be gentle! :)
> 
> I have just upgraded from Outlook 2000 to Mutt.
> 
> Using the most recent version and starting mutt via mutt -y to default to the folder 
>list.
> 
> It shows me which folders have new mail in with the N character, but this never 
>updates

It never updates automatically.
'x' is your friend here

From the help screen:
x   check-new   check mailboxes for new mail

Jerome

-- 
+---+
|   'the panorama of the city is wrong  |
|   in fact the city seems to be gone!' |
| the clash, stop the world, 1980   |
+---+

Re: compile problems

[David T-G]

Eduardo --

...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
% 
% Hi all.

Hello!


% 
% Is this the right list to make questions about compile new versions of
% mutt? if not, where can i find ansewrs about it?

Generally, yes.  What sort of questions do you have?

Basically you download the tar.gz file from ftp.mutt.org, unpack it
somewhere, change into the direcotory, run

  ./configure

with some possible option flags (like --prefix=... for one), and then run
make and watch it all churn away.


% 
% ~ejg


:-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg25709/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: New Mail While In The Mailbox List View

[Michael Tatge]

Jerome De Greef ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> * Dean Richard Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > 
> > I have just upgraded from Outlook 2000 to Mutt.
> > 
> > Using the most recent version and starting mutt via mutt -y to
> > default to the folder list.
> > 
> > It shows me which folders have new mail in with the N character, but
> > this never updates
> 
> It never updates automatically.  'x' is your friend here
> 
> From the help screen: x   check-new   check mailboxes for new mail

This is not a default keybinding. 'x' normally means exit. But
is not bound in the browser. You can bind x to check-new, though.

bind browser x check-new

HTH,

Michael
-- 
"Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable, well-engineered commercial software?"
(By Matt Welsh)

PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key

Re: account-hook

[David T-G]

Johan --

...and then Johan Ekh said...
% 
% Hello!
% I have several pop-accounts and I try to retrieve my mails by using
% "account-hook" as indicated below.
...
% Mutt gives me the following error "account-hook: unknown command".
% 
% Any ideas? I use SuSE7.2 and my Mutt installation is the standard rpm that
% comes with the distribution.

Since you used NS to send your mail I can't really tell what version of
mutt you're using, but my recollection is that account-hook came into
being sometime around 1.3.2x and so if you're at 1.2 or not in the
twenties of 1.3 then your version simply doesn't support it.

You might provide us with the output of mutt -v if this doesn't solve
your problem...


% 
% Best regards,
% 
% Johan Ekh

HTH & HAND


:-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg25711/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: New Mail While In The Mailbox List View

[Jerome De Greef]

* Michael Tatge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Jerome De Greef ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> > * Dean Richard Benson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > 
> > > I have just upgraded from Outlook 2000 to Mutt.
> > > 
> > > Using the most recent version and starting mutt via mutt -y to
> > > default to the folder list.
> > > 
> > > It shows me which folders have new mail in with the N character, but
> > > this never updates
> > 
> > It never updates automatically.  'x' is your friend here
> > 
> > From the help screen: x   check-new   check mailboxes for new mail
> 
> This is not a default keybinding. 'x' normally means exit. But
> is not bound in the browser. You can bind x to check-new, though.
> 
> bind browser x check-new

Ooops, you're right. The default binding for check-new in the browser is
TAB (see manual.txt).
I forgot I changes it...

Jerome

-- 
+---+
|   'the panorama of the city is wrong  |
|   in fact the city seems to be gone!' |
| the clash, stop the world, 1980   |
+---+

Re: set sort_aux problem

[Franco Vite]

[ven 15/03/2002, ore 20:37] => Jussi Ekholm scrive:

 [...]

> So, could it be, that you have typed 'date-sen_d_'? Nevertheless, works
> fine with me, so I have not much of a clue why this doesn't work with
> you. My only idea is, that you have typoed 'date-sent' to 'date-send'.
 
 I'm a **
 Sorry :-|

 PS
 Tnx ;)

-- 
Franco
"Quello che abbiamo e' quello che ci siamo presi, e quello che ci siamo 
 presi e' solo una piccola parte di quello di cui abbiamo bisogno"
   Assalti Frontali

setting To: field based on file

[Michael P. Soulier]

Gentlemen/Ladies,

Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email
based on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias capability to
specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of email addresses, and I'd
like Mutt to use those for an outgoing message, is there a simple way to
accomplish that?

Thanks,

Mike

-- 
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
"...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort."  -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix



msg25714/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: setting To: field based on file

[David T-G]

Michael --

...and then Michael P. Soulier said...
% 
% Gentlemen/Ladies,
% 
% Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email
% based on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias capability to
% specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of email addresses, and I'd
% like Mutt to use those for an outgoing message, is there a simple way to
% accomplish that?

Do you mean something like

  for NAME in `cat /tmp/names` ; do mutt $NAME < /tmp/mailbody ; done

or so?

If you want to suck in everything in /tmp/names to your to: field for a
massive letter, then I simply put my cursor at the field (I use bcc:) and
read in the file, which is already tab-indented and comma-separated; I
have a script that grabs addresses and generates that output.

You might try generating your list of names such that it makes an alias
definition and then sourcing that file from within mutt or your muttrc or
even making the file itself a bare-bones muttrc file, but all of those
sound pretty ugly.

Just want do you want to do?


% 
% Thanks,
% 
% Mike

HTH & HAND


% 
% -- 
% Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
% "...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
% of nerd-like effort."  -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix


:-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg25715/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: setting To: field based on file

[Justin R. Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Said Michael P. Soulier on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:35:30AM -0500:

> Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email
> based on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias
> capability to specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of
> email addresses, and I'd like Mutt to use those for an outgoing
> message, is there a simple way to accomplish that?

I would think that if you use vim that you could accomplish this in a
roundabout way with a vim macro.  It could use something like:

:r!cat file.txt | sed 's/\n/, /g'

at the To: field in some fashion.  The above is by no means tested (or
even guaranteed correct :-) but is a general idea.  

As for from within Mutt itself and not the editor, I'm not sure.  I'm
not aware of a way to read in any value to one of the header fields as
you are editing it. 

Maybe someone can build on my brainstorm?

- -- 
[!] Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP 0xC9C40C31 -=- http://codesorcery.net

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8l2BE94d6K8nEDDERAlExAKCMhR6Xpik6FiTRXuc5btB55+3BqwCfYXqm
Fhl6He8Dn8cBozbLB7lc5XU=
=ZH/j
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

alternate pgp/gpg usage?

[Ulli Horlacher]

I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys). 
As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.

Some of my e-mail partners still have only pgp 2. I am looking now for a
smart/automatic way to select pgp2.rc depending on the recipients address,
because pgp 2 users cannot read gpg encrypted messages.

Any ideas, suggestions?


-- 
-- Ullrich Horlacher, BelWue Coordination --- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
   Computing Centre University of Stuttgart (RUS)  phone: +49 711 685 5868
   Allmandring 30, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germanyfax: +49 711 678 8363
-- saft://saft.belwue.de/framstag - http://www.belwue.de/ 

Re: setting To: field based on file

[N. Thomas]

* Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19]:
> Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email based
> on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias capability to
> specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of email addresses, and
> I'd like Mutt to use those for an outgoing message, is there a simple way
> to accomplish that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "random text file", but here's how I do it.

   1. Make sure $edit_headers set so that you can modify the To: field in
  your editor.

   2. using your editor:
  2a. read in the file with the email address in it
  2b. join the addresses into one line, separating them by a command and
  a space (", ")
  2c. put this line on the To: line.

   3. send your message

1 and 3 are trivial, #2 assumes you have a good editor and know how to use
it properly. You are using Vim right? =-)

noble

-- 
ObligatoryMusicNote: Found a used copy of a King's X Dogman CD in a local
 music store yesterday. Haven't listened to this one in
 almost a decade! (What ever happened to my cassette I
 wonder...) Listening to it now, it rocks...

Re: setting To: field based on file

[Gary Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:35:30AM -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:

> Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email
> based on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias capability to
> specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of email addresses, and I'd
> like Mutt to use those for an outgoing message, is there a simple way to
> accomplish that?

This is how I would do it:

while read address
do
mutt -s 'subject' $address < message_file
done < address_file

HTH,
Gary

-- 
Gary Johnson   | Agilent Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | Spokane, Washington, USA
http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |

Re: alternate pgp/gpg usage?

[David T-G]

Ulli --

...and then Ulli Horlacher said...
% 
% I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys). 
% As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.

Good enough.  I presume you'll ensure that pgp2.rc is configured properly
as well.


% 
% Some of my e-mail partners still have only pgp 2. I am looking now for a
% smart/automatic way to select pgp2.rc depending on the recipients address,
% because pgp 2 users cannot read gpg encrypted messages.
% 
% Any ideas, suggestions?

What about

  send-hook . source gpg.rc
  send-hook 'pal1|partner2' source pgp2.rc

for starters?  Yeah, it's overkill, but it's the same basic concept...


% 
% 
% -- 
% -- Ullrich Horlacher, BelWue Coordination --- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
%Computing Centre University of Stuttgart (RUS)  phone: +49 711 685 5868
%Allmandring 30, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germanyfax: +49 711 678 8363
% -- saft://saft.belwue.de/framstag - http://www.belwue.de/ 


HTH & HAND

:-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.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg25720/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[RFE] Tree and background color in index

[Vincent Lefevre]

There is a problem, which can be seen as a bug or bad design, with the
tree and the background color in the index.

Here in general, I have a black background. So, I have:

color tree   brightred  black

But I sometimes use a different background color, e.g.

color index  brightwhiteblue~l~P

The background of such a line should be entirely blue. The problem is
that the background of the tree will still be black instead of blue.
IMHO, the "color tree" command shouldn't take a background color, or
this color should be ignored. Another solution (but not as nice)
would be to be able to give a pattern for the "color tree" command;
for instance:

color tree   brightred  blue~l~P

The best solution would be to give 3 colors for the "color index"
command: the foreground color, the tree color and the background
color. For instance:

color index  brightwhitebrightred   blue~l~P

This would allow to change the tree color so that it isn't the same
as the background color or to be able to choose the same color as
the foreground color.

Any comment?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:  - 100%
validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International
des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[R Signes]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> > > My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> > > seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> > > displays in status line information that signature could not be
> > > verified. And it displays it despite of that in the message area one
> > > can see that message is OK.
> > Have a look at $pgp_good_sign.  
> It's not defined. Please note that _mutt_ says that signature is _not_

Define it.

set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"

-- 
rjbs



msg25722/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Michal Kochanowicz]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> Define it.
> 
> set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
it still complains that it could not verify signature in messages which
were _encrypted_ony_.
-- 
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!

Re: setting To: field based on file

[Dave Smith]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:35:30AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there a way in Mutt to specify the To: field of an outgoing email
> based on addresses in a random text file? I'm aware of the alias capability to
> specify mailing lists, but if I simply have a file of email addresses, and I'd
> like Mutt to use those for an outgoing message, is there a simple way to
> accomplish that?

In the spirit of 'many ways to skin a cat', I attach my 'mail_to_list'
Perl script.  It uses 'mail', but you could hack it to use 'mutt'.

It may not be the most elegant/efficient way, but I think it works.

-- 
David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bristol, England



eval "exec $PERL -w $0 $*"   # Magic to invoke perl on this script
  if $untrue; # using the environment variable PERL.

$message_filename = shift;
$subject_filename = shift;

open(SUBJECT_FILE, $subject_filename);
$subject = ;
close (SUBJECT_FILE);

chop $subject;
while ($address = <>)
  {
  chop $address;
  open (MAIL_COMMAND, "|mail -s $subject $address");
  open (MESSAGE_FILE, $message_filename);
  while ()
{
print MESSAGE_FILE;
}
  close MAIL_COMMAND;
  close MESSAGE_FILE;
  }

Re: compile problems

[Eduardo Gargiulo]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 07:50:21AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> % Is this the right list to make questions about compile new versions of
> % mutt? if not, where can i find ansewrs about it?
> 
> Generally, yes.  What sort of questions do you have?

i'm trying to compile mutt-1.3.28i.tar.gz, but i'm getting errors when
i run ./configure like

- 8< --
checking version of bison... 1.28, ok
checking for catalogs to be installed...
checking whether this iconv is good enough... no
configure: error: Try using libiconv instead
- >8 --

i've downloaded and compiled libiconv-1.7 from gnu.org, and try the
option --with-libiconv-prefix, but without success.

how can i fix this?

~ejg



msg25725/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Dave Ewart]

On Tuesday, 19.03.2002 at 21:00 +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> > Define it.
> > 
> > set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
> I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
> it still complains that it could not verify signature in messages which
> were _encrypted_ony_.

Well, obviously it _couldn't_ verify the signature - there is no
signature to verify?!?

Dave.
-- 
Dave Ewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computing Manager, Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
Cancer Research UK
PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370




msg25726/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [RFE] Tree and background color in index

[Mike Schiraldi]

> There is a problem, which can be seen as a bug or bad design, with the
> tree and the background color in the index.

Yeah, there was a thread on this last month.. 

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-users&m=101360992730167&w=2

IIRC, we agreed that mutt's color system needs an overhaul, but we don't
feel like doing it right now.


-- 
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research



smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Michal Kochanowicz]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:01:15PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> I suspect that mutt and gpg/pgp are doing everything right but that
> you are misinterpreting the results. Have you and your colleague read
This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
NOT SIGNED:

i:Exit  -:PrevPg  :NextPg v:View Attachm.  d:Del  r:Reply  j:Next ?:Help
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:44:40 +0100
From: Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PGP lokalnie (e)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i
Organization: Happy GNU/Linux Users

[-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
  "Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
[-- End of PGP output --]

[-- The following data is PGP/MIME encrypted --]

test
--
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!

[-- End of PGP/MIME encrypted data --]








- PF- 653/663: Michal Kochanowicz PGP lokalnie (e) 
  -- (all)
PGP signature could NOT be verified.

Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.

> up in the The GNU Privacy Handbook (http://www.gnupg.org/docs.html)
> about validating public keys?
I've browsed through it and I didn't learn anything new. Pleas note that
when used form shell gpg says that everything is OK (as can be seen in
message part of above screenshot). It (of course)  returns 0 exit code.
-- 
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!

threading question

[Will Yardley]

any idea why the subject is sometimes duplicated in threaded displays?
it seems to happen mainly when the parent is missing; ie:

  81   L Mar 18 Wietse Venema  (1.0K) Re: Getting postalias to use gdbm
  82  DL Mar 18 Ralf Hildebrandt   (1.0K) -->Re: SMTP dialog log
  83 N L Mar 19 Bernd Matthes  (1.0K) `->Re: SMTP dialog log
  84 N L Mar 18 Ralf Hildebrandt   (1.0K) Re: Postfix maildir setup.
  85 N L Mar 19 Scott Gerhardt (0.9K) `*>
  86 N L Mar 19 Ralf Hildebrandt   (0.8K)   `->

why wouldn't 82 and 83 look like:

  82  DL Mar 18 Ralf Hildebrandt   (1.0K) -->Re: SMTP dialog log
  83 N L Mar 19 Bernd Matthes  (1.0K) `->

is it because the parent might have a different subject? i can't seem to
get consistent behavior one way or another, so i think i'm probably
guessing wrong as to the reason for this (because if i delete a parent
message, the two children give the behavior in my second example... what
i'd imagine to be the "correct" behavior).

-- 
Will Yardley
input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Dave Smith]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
> NOT SIGNED:
[unimportant bits snipped from message to shorten it]
> 
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:44:40 +0100
> From: Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
> gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
>   "Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> [-- End of PGP output --]
> 
> [-- The following data is PGP/MIME encrypted --]
> 
> test
> 
> [-- End of PGP/MIME encrypted data --]
> 
> - PF- 653/663: Michal Kochanowicz PGP lokalnie (e)   
>-- (all)
> PGP signature could NOT be verified.
> 
> Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
> SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.

Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
behaving correctly.  How can it verify the signature on the message
if it wasn't signed?

Please feel free to ignore the following if it's all obvious stuff that
you know already

There are two things that you can do to a message before you send it -
sign and encrypt.  They are independent - you can sign but not encrypt,
encrypt but not sign, do both or neither.

Encrypting is where the message is scrambled using the recipient's
public key.  Only the recipient will be able to descramble the message,
as to do so requires their personal private key.

Signing is where you add a short amount of data (signature) to the
message, generated from the message and your private key.  Anyone who
receives the message will be able to verify the signature against
your public key, to prove that the message came from you (and has not
been spoofed or altered in transit).

Therefore, the two processes use different keys - Encrypting uses the
recipient's public key, whereas signing uses your own private key.

At the receiving end, decryption also uses two different keys -
decrypting requires the receiver's private key, whereas signature
verification requires the sender's public key.

The fact that you can decrypt a message from a particular sender
does not prove that they sent it - only that whoever sent it used
your public key to encrypt it; in theory, anyone could have sent
it, provided they can get hold of your public key (which is likely,
since it's 'public', and most people publish their public keys
all over the 'net).  If a message is only encrypted (and not
signed), there is no signature to verify, which is why you get
"PGP signature could NOT be verified."

HTH...

-- 
David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bristol, England

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Dave Smith]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
> SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.

One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
if there isn't one available.  That's why you get the message.
Perhaps that's the source of your confusion?

-- 
David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bristol, England

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Phil Gregory]

* Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
> > gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
> >   "Michal Kochanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> > [-- End of PGP output --]
> > 
> > [-- The following data is PGP/MIME encrypted --]
> > 
> > test
> > 
> > [-- End of PGP/MIME encrypted data --]
> > 
> > - PF- 653/663: Michal Kochanowicz PGP lokalnie (e) 
>  -- (all)
> > PGP signature could NOT be verified.
> > Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
> > SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.
> 
> Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> behaving correctly.  How can it verify the signature on the message
> if it wasn't signed?

I believe the problem is that mutt shouldn't even be trying to verify the
signature since there isn't one.  I'd say that the message about the
signature not being verified should only appear if there is a signature
but it's invalid.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / DNRC / UMBC-LUG: http://lug.umbc.edu
PGP:  ID: D8C75CF5  print: 0A7D B3AD 2D10 1099  7649 AB64 04C2 05A6
--- --
If you decide to hold a double execution of the hero and an underling who
failed or betrayed you, see to it that the hero is scheduled to go first.
   -- Evil Overlord's Handbook, entry 93
 --- --

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[David Champion]

* On 2002.03.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
*   "Phil Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
> 
> I believe the problem is that mutt shouldn't even be trying to verify the
> signature since there isn't one.  I'd say that the message about the
> signature not being verified should only appear if there is a signature
> but it's invalid.

But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.

Setting $pgp_good_signature allows mutt to detect good signatures on
data. However, since pgp/gpg cannot determine signature validity on
unencrypted data, mutt warns you that the signature cannot be verified.
This is true, by specification.

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Michal Kochanowicz]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> behaving correctly.  How can it verify the signature on the message
> if it wasn't signed?
Or maybe I'm stupid ;) Why write anything about signature if it wasn't
signed?

> Please feel free to ignore the following if it's all obvious stuff that
> you know already
[cut --- I'm not an expert, but I know basics]

> The fact that you can decrypt a message from a particular sender
> does not prove that they sent it - only that whoever sent it used
Right.

> your public key to encrypt it; in theory, anyone could have sent
> it, provided they can get hold of your public key (which is likely,
Right.

> since it's 'public', and most people publish their public keys
> all over the 'net).  If a message is only encrypted (and not
So I do --- vide my sig.

> signed), there is no signature to verify, which is why you get
> "PGP signature could NOT be verified."
So this message means:
  "You can't be sure who sent this mail because there were no signature
  to check"
and not:
  "The signature is BAD, so somebody is cheating"
?
-- 
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Michal Kochanowicz]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:47:24PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
> if there isn't one available.  That's why you get the message.
> Perhaps that's the source of your confusion?
Yes... This message looks like an alarm to me. But there is nothing
wrong going on.
-- 
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!

Quoting HTML mail in reply

[Daniel J Peng]

Is there any way to have mutt automatically quote HTML mail when I reply
to it?

My mailcap has text/html; lynx -dump -force_html '%s'; copiousoutput
and it only makes sense for mutt to quote copiousoutput MIME types in
replies...

-- 
W: You see, me and Willetta have been going on for a few weeks now.
Phil: Only a few weeks, and she's living in your room?
DJP: Will! What's that thing you said earlier about taking things slow!
M&W rolling on the ground laughing.

Re: Quoting HTML mail in reply

[Will Yardley]

Daniel J Peng wrote:

> Is there any way to have mutt automatically quote HTML mail when I reply
> to it?
> 
> My mailcap has text/html; lynx -dump -force_html '%s'; copiousoutput
> and it only makes sense for mutt to quote copiousoutput MIME types in
> replies...

set autoview for that type of attachment.  it will quote it then.

-- 
Will Yardley
input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Dave Smith]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:09:23PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> > Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> > behaving correctly.  How can it verify the signature on the message
> > if it wasn't signed?
> Or maybe I'm stupid ;) Why write anything about signature if it wasn't
> signed?

Because it wants to.  Because it feels lonely and wants someone to talk
to.  :-)

> > signed), there is no signature to verify, which is why you get
> > "PGP signature could NOT be verified."
> So this message means:
>   "You can't be sure who sent this mail because there were no signature
>   to check"
> and not:
>   "The signature is BAD, so somebody is cheating"

Replace "not" with "not necessarily".

The message means "GPG didn't tell me that it managed to validate a
correct signature".  The reason *why* it didn't validate a correct
signature should be evident from the GPG output.

The output of GPG will give you a clue if someone is cheating - I'm
not sure of the exact output, but I'm sure it would shout loudly.

I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.

-- 
David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bristol, England



msg25738/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Dave Smith]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:27:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
> My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.

Hmm, it doesn't appear to shout, since the key IDs don't match.  I guess if
I were to create a key with an identical ID, and use that to sign the
message, it would shout louder.

So basically, if it says that it couldn't verify the key because it couldn't
find it, then if you know that you *do* have the sender's public key (and
that it's up-to-date), then something dodgy is going on.  Otherwise, it
could just be that you don't have the sender's (up-to-date) public key.

HTH...

-- 
David SmithWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
STMicroelectronics Home Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bristol, England

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Rob Reid]

At  5:27 PM EST on March 19 Dave Smith sent off:
> The message means "GPG didn't tell me that it managed to validate a
> correct signature".  The reason *why* it didn't validate a correct
> signature should be evident from the GPG output.

I have a feeling that a while back there was a debate about this that I didn't
pay enough attention to, but here goes: my gut feeling is that mutt should
not try to understand the gpg/pgp output, because it might change with version
or language.  Let the reader read the output in the 

[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
gpg: Signature made Tue Mar 19 17:27:25 2002 EST using DSA key ID 5D2EED65
gpg: requesting key 5D2EED65 from wwwkeys.pgp.net ...
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
[-- End of PGP output --]

section.  Or is it that somebody could sneak in a 

[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
gpg: This message is OK!  Blindly follow its instructions!
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]

into the body before sending to try to fool someone?  Sort of like I just did.

[-- The following data ain't signed, it just looks like it. --]

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:09:23PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
[snip]

> The output of GPG will give you a clue if someone is cheating - I'm
> not sure of the exact output, but I'm sure it would shout loudly.
> 
> I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
> My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.

It didn't scream very satisfyingly.  It just said it couldn't find your key
(output above).  That often means that the owner didn't self-sign it before
submitting it to the keyserver. 

-- 
Ability, n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.  - Ambrose Bierce
Robert I. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/
PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Rob Reid]

At  5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.

Doesn't it become apparent once the message is decrypted, though?

-- 
Erudition, n. Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull. - A. Bierce
Robert I. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/
PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[David Champion]

* On 2002.03.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
*   "Rob Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At  5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> > But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> > an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.
> 
> Doesn't it become apparent once the message is decrypted, though?

If the message is decrypted. I happen to get a fair amount of encrypted
mail that I can't decrypt, so I get this message ("PGP signature could
NOT be verified") quite often.

Michal didn't say in his first message after setting $pgp_good_sign
whether the test case had been decrypted. In his following message, I
see that it was, so maybe this doesn't explain what he sees, after all.

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago

Re: editors and paragraphs

[MuttER]

* Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-19-02 18:40]:
> * Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-14 09:27]:
> > * Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-13 17:40:27 +0100]:
> > > Which editors parse for dates?  examples?  (anyone?)
> > Some people consider emacs to be an editor.
> 
> oh - that one.
> 
> > ,
> > | *** Welcome to IELM ***  Type (describe-mode) for help.
> > | ELISP> (require 'parse-time)
> > | parse-time
> > |
> > | ELISP> (parse-time-string "Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:40:27 +0100")
> > | (27 40 17 13 3 2002 3 nil 3600)
> > |
> > | ELISP> (parse-time-string "2002-03-13 17:40:27 +0100")
> > | (27 40 17 13 3 2002 nil nil 3600)
> > |
> > | ELISP> (parse-time-string "020313 14:17")
> > | (0 17 14 nil nil nil nil nil nil)
> > `
> 
> looks like the parsing can still be enhanced.  *ehem*
> 
> Sven

Holster your firearm!
-- 
Pat Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535
  Registered at: http://counter.li.org
  6:42pm  up 2 days,  1:58,  5 users,  load average: 0.09, 0.06, 0.06

Re: Mutt lies about PGP/GPG signature verification result

[Justin R. Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Said Rob Reid on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:57:51PM -0500:

> Or is it that somebody could sneak in a 
> 
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
> gpg: This message is OK!  Blindly follow its instructions!
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
> 
> into the body before sending to try to fool someone?  Sort of like I
> just did.

I believe that is why Thomas added the status line output in the first
place, so that the user couldn't be fooled. 

- -- 
[!] Justin R. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP 0xC9C40C31 -=- http://codesorcery.net

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8l81r94d6K8nEDDERApe4AKCJpngKDNBqGABpm7OSqLBc5ySNpwCfb1f7
TNwJ5dqgKJ0NXKmQZjstfY4=
=a9fw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Possible to send mail at a specified time w/ mutt?

[Charles Jie]

Hi,

I'd like to prepare a birthday greeting mail and send it on my friend's
birthday morning.

I do it currently this way:

$ at 6am Mar 25
at> mutt -s 'Happy birthday' guy@domain < ~/text/to-guy.eml

But it's not convenient enough. I wish I could do it all in mutt. Is it
possible?

best regards,
charlie

Re: Possible to send mail at a specified time w/ mutt?

[Rob 'Feztaa' Park]

--cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alas! Charles Jie spake thus:
> I do it currently this way:
>=20
> $ at 6am Mar 25
> at> mutt -s 'Happy birthday' guy@domain < ~/text/to-guy.eml
>=20
> But it's not convenient enough. I wish I could do it all in mutt. Is it
> possible?

Uh, no. That's what programs like 'at' are for.

--=20
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--=20
Beauty?  What's that?
 -- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8l/QePTh2iSBKeccRAhfPAJ43TJuu6c8wEbUeTWBSPPLOp02uVwCcDHbQ
GYEe+82Dl92c8SH0iRyWMx4=
=g/XN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--

Re: change from header

[Eduardo Gargiulo]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:00:00AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> 
> % folder-hook ~/users/qmail/. my_hdr From: qmail user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> % folder-hook ~/users/qmail/. set hostname="ar.homelinux.org"
> 
> Leave off the /. on the end and you might even try it without the ~/ on
> the front.  Something like
> 
>   folder-hook users/qmail 'set hostname=ar.homelinux.org ; my_hdr ...'
> 
> should work.

another question: is it possible that if i run mutt with -f option, the
folder-hooks don't work?

~ejg



msg25747/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: setting To: field based on file

[Michael P. Soulier]

On 19/03/02 Gary Johnson did speaketh:

> This is how I would do it:
> 
> while read address
> do
> mutt -s 'subject' $address < message_file
> done < address_file

Well, that's more of a mailing list thing. I think a single message with a
lot of email addresses in the To: field or the Bcc: field is what I'm after. 

Mike

-- 
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
"...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort."  -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix



msg25748/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [RFE] Tree and background color in index

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Mar 19, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > There is a problem, which can be seen as a bug or bad design, with the
> > tree and the background color in the index.
> 
> Yeah, there was a thread on this last month.. 
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-users&m=101360992730167&w=2
> 
> IIRC, we agreed that mutt's color system needs an overhaul, but we don't
> feel like doing it right now.

Well, some of us feel like it, but can't handle it yet. :)



msg25749/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug Report Guide

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Mar 16, Sven Guckes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I have updated my text about reporting bugs and made it available as a
> separate page:
> http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/bugrep.html
> 
> Additions?  Corrections?  Feedback welcome!

The last sentence of the top section is:

"The report then gets sent to debian.org and there enters the"

First, this is incomplete.  Second, it is wrong as far as it goes.  flea(1)
doesn't send anything to debian.org.

Also, it's not that useful to suggest people send bugs to mutt-users, since
most people that frequest this list aren't developers.  mutt -v requests
bug reports go to mutt-dev, and that's where they should go.  And while you
need to be subscribed to the lists to post to them normally, other
legitimate mails (especially bug reports) will make it through the
moderators.  It's not necessary to tell people they have to subscribe
before they can even report a bug.

I see bugs posted to comp.mail.mutt get forwarded to mutt-dev periodically,
but I have no idea what developers actively monitor that newsgroup or how
many of the reports make it to mutt-dev.

In any case, people really should just use flea if they want to get a
tracked resolution/not fall through the cracks.



msg25750/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: display of flagged message in collasped thread

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Mar 17, parv [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> i am currently using v1.3.27i.  is it possible to show the
> "flag-message" indicator for a collapsed thread?  currently i see
> when threads are collasped...

It can't be done now but it's been requested a few times.



msg25751/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt 1.3.28 + ncurses 5.2 + xterm = blank screen

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Mar 18, Thomas E. Dickey [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > > I've compiled mutt-1.3.28i in the default configuration on RedHat
> > > > Linux 7.2 (i386) with all updates.  If I run it in xterm (from
> > > > XFree86-4.1.0) or in rxvt-2.7.6, it shows a blank screen.  I can
> > > > quit by pressing Ctrl-C and Enter.  The same executable runs on the
> > > > Linux console just fine.
...
> > Unsetting COLORFGBG fixes the problem.
> 
> that's a bug that I fixed in September.  The problem was that when I coded
> the $COLORFGBG logic (which btw is under-documented in rxvt - you have to
> read the C code to see it), it didn't occur to me that its format might
> change.  It happens that the format depends on whether xpm is linked in -
> 2 or 3 fields.  The background color is the last field.

Indeed; Pavel, please see http://bugs.guug.de/db/10/1011.html for this bug
and the resolution, and ignore the mails from Cindy.

> $COLORFGBG is marked as an experimental feature.  I've gotten 2-3 reports
> of this particular problem - but only months after I stumbled on it
> myself.  Apparently one or more of the rpm's last year turned that feature
> on, though it was in the code almost a year.

Well, I think it was more the other bug where it would get turned on if
other development features like hard-tabs were turned on.  It was
apparently a combination of these two.



msg25752/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Mutt 1.3.28 + ncurses 5.2 + xterm = blank screen

[Jeremy Blosser]

On Mar 19, Jeremy Blosser [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Well, I think it was more the other bug where it would get turned on if
> other development features like hard-tabs were turned on.  It was
> apparently a combination of these two.

Sorry, I mean a combination of the colorfgbg bug, and the bug where
colorfgbg was enabled when unrelated dev features were enabled.



msg25753/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: setting To: field based on file

[Gary Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:10:32PM -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 19/03/02 Gary Johnson did speaketh:
> 
> > This is how I would do it:
> > 
> > while read address
> > do
> > mutt -s 'subject' $address < message_file
> > done < address_file
> 
> Well, that's more of a mailing list thing. I think a single message with a
> lot of email addresses in the To: field or the Bcc: field is what I'm after. 

Oh!  Well in that case, how about:

mutt -s 'subject' `< address_file` < message_file

Unless of course you're also after something more interactive.

Gary

-- 
Gary Johnson   | Agilent Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | Spokane, Washington, USA
http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |

Binding query-command and alias expansion to tab key

[Tres Hofmeister]

I'm wondering if there's a way to bind complete and
complete-query to the same key, rather than two keys as shown in
the manual:

  completecomplete filename or alias
   ^T  complete-query  complete address with query

I'd like to hit the tab key, and see first my aliases matching
my string, and then the results of an external query to an LDAP server.
It would also be O.K. to see the external query results only if there
was no alias match.

I have the LDAP query working, but at the moment it is bound
to ^T.  Is this even possible?  Any suggestions?  Thanks...

-- 
Tres Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~tres/
Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Binding both complete and complete-query to tab key

[Tres Hofmeister]

I'm wondering if there's a way to bind complete and
complete-query to the same key, rather than two keys as shown in
the manual:

  completecomplete filename or alias
   ^T  complete-query  complete address with query

I'd like to hit the tab key, and see first my aliases matching
my string, and then the results of an external query to an LDAP server.
It would also be O.K. to see the external query results only if there
was no alias match.

I have the LDAP query working, but at the moment it is bound
to ^T.  Is this even possible?  Any suggestions?  Thanks...

-- 
Tres Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~tres/
Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research