Re: Mutt/Cygwin shortcomings
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 03:31:39PM +0200, Stefan Friedle wrote: >I use fetchmail to fetch mail from my POP account and use procmail to > deliver it to my local maildir (~/Maildir/inbox/). All with cygwin on > Windows NT. In my .fetchmailrc there is a line: > > mda: 'procmail -m D:/home/.procmailrc' > >which calls procmail and passes the filename of my .procmailrc to it. > Without this procmail fails, telling me that > /var/spool/mail/Administrator could not be created -- but I don't use > 'Administrator' as my login name ... Hi Stefan, FYI, there has just been some discussion of this issue on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. It seems the -m option causes odd behavior with regard to the Administrator. My problem with the -m option had to do with ^From_headers. On the other hand, it seems to work for you...? Tom On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 04:16:45PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > My WAG is that you are using the procmail "-m" option, because there > have been other recent posts reporting this problem. If I'm correct, > don't do that. Instead invoke procmail (via fetchmail) as follows: > > # from ~/.fetchmailrc > mda "/usr/bin/procmail -d %T"
Mutt's hooks and their logic
I wanted to ask about different hooks and their logic. Here's and example of a send-hook: send-hook '~t ^foo\.bar@baz\.qux$' 'set signature=~/.sigs/sig.foo' This, at least, *should* add ~/.sigs/sig.foo to all mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and that it does. But on the flip-side, it adds that same signature to ALL outgoing mail. This is not a problem, because it was fixable by adding the following send-hook before the previous one: send-hook . 'set signature=~/.sigs/sig.default' But I was just wondering about the logic Muttþ uses with hooks. Shouldn't that be plain obvious with that first send-hook, that *only* add sig.foo to mails going to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Why on earth do I need send-hook to define, that I don't want to use sig.foo in every other mail, as well? þ Mutt 1.5.1i (2002-05-02) -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.cjb.net/ msg28872/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Set from shows no affect
* AxUm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-06-11 03:00]: > Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > set realname="Oliver Fuchs" > > set [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > set use_from # should be default > > set envelope_from # see manual section 6.3.43. > > Humm, even with that the from in a send hooks only takes effect if > I start a message twice, realname takes the first time. > > set use_from > set envelope_from > > send-hook x \ > 'set realname="&tc"; set from="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"' > > any ideas? send-hook gets executed when you send the message, not when you start a message. Thus, you see the results for the next message. (darren) -- I don't mow lawns for the reason that I don't shave.
Re: Diff between 'd' and 'D~A'?
Ah, ok. Thanks for the replies. It was indeed the order. :) -Ken
Re: [dan@hld.ca: Re: [oclug] GPG and mutt]
Brenda, et al -- ...and then Brenda J. Butler said... % % I asked this on a local linux user list, and was advised % that perhaps mutt-users would be a better place to ... % > I'm trying to use GPG via mutt, and I find there is an annoying % > two-second wait every time I hit a signed message in the index % > while GPG verifies if the signature is ok. I'd like to turn off % > automatic verification, but I can't find the command to verify % > the signature "on demand". Is there one? One macro has been presented. You might be interested in this one, which toggles verification; your reading goes on as normal and then you switch modes and continue reading mail as normal. macro index \cv "toggle pgp_verify_sig\n" It's a little simpler than the verify-just-this-one macro but I find it helpful, particularly when I'm reading a list and suddenly a bunch of people have started signing messages but haven't uploaded their keys yet. (I typically leave it verifying on; the extra second hasn't gotten to me yet :-) 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! msg28875/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mutt's hooks and their logic
Jussi -- ...and then Jussi Ekholm said... % ... % But I was just wondering about the logic Muttþ uses with hooks. It all depends. No, really! Some hooks can be applied more than once, so mutt reads all of those definitions and applies the union of the sets. Some hooks can only be applied once, so mutt applies only the first one that matches. IIRC, send & folder are multi while fcc & save & msg are single. I think there are other hooks that I'm too lazy to look up in the manual, but you get the idea. % Shouldn't that be plain obvious with that first send-hook, that *only* % add sig.foo to mails going to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Why on earth do I need % send-hook to define, that I don't want to use sig.foo in every other % mail, as well? In some cases it seems obvious to someone reading the code, but mutt can't make that assumption. Furthermore, what about the terribly contrived example wherein you want your signature to change from now on (or until some other triggering condition) after having met this hook? I dunno; maybe your sig changes to "off duty" as soon as you send in your email to clock out electronically or some such... % % þ Mutt 1.5.1i (2002-05-02) % % -- % Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.cjb.net/ 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! msg28876/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailcap and Cygwin/Mutt 1.2.5i (was Re: Mutt/Cygwin shortcomings)
Other Cygwin users on this list may be interested in some sources of information directly from Cygwin maintainers: http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/fetchmail/fetchmail-5.9.12.README http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/procmail/procmail-3.22.README In general, the cygwin mailing list does indeed seem to be the more appropriate place to discuss the quirks of Unix-like mail processing under Windows. Tom On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:48:21AM +0200, Thomas Baker wrote: > I now have _two_ Cygwin/Mutt 1.2.5i's: > -rwxr-xr-x389632 Jan 3 2001 /unixmail/bin/mutt.exe [1] > -rwxr-xr-x608768 Dec 10 11:16 /usr/bin/mutt.exe - from cygwin.com > The mutt -v outputs are attached below. > > FWIW, I re-did all of my tests using /unixmail/bin/mutt -- > including mutt -n -- again without success. Then I tried > the recently downloaded /usr/bin/mutt -n and mailcap worked > immediately. > > Since fetchmailconf exits with an error under FreeX86 (it > was expecting "dns" as a server, even though I was online > with a dns server), I will proceed to figure out how to > reconfigure everything for /usr/bin/mutt and /usr/bin/fetchmail > instead of using the Unixmail package (which had provided > fill-in-the-blank configuration). -- Dr. Thomas Baker[EMAIL PROTECTED] Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-171-408-5784 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
resent messages not saved?
It seems that messages re-sent (esc-e) are not being saved to my sent folder. In particular, I have a long message that I want to respond to in chunks; I used esc-e to re-send it, edit it up, and send it. When I go into ~/sent (where all my other saved mail is), there's no copy. Is this a (mis-)feature of resending messages? Is there a configuration option to control it? I've been quite paniced by this this morning. Adam
Re: resent messages not saved?
Turns out this is a "feature"/bug that has been fixed in 1.4 John On 06/11/02, 11:49:46AM -0400, Adam Shostack wrote: > It seems that messages re-sent (esc-e) are not being saved to my sent > folder. In particular, I have a long message that I want to respond > to in chunks; I used esc-e to re-send it, edit it up, and send it. > When I go into ~/sent (where all my other saved mail is), there's no > copy. > > Is this a (mis-)feature of resending messages? Is there a > configuration option to control it? > > I've been quite paniced by this this morning. > > > Adam
More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
OK, I'm having lots of issues with send-hooks recently, it seems. My new project: trying to deal with my mailing lists correctly. I have a bunch of lists, each with its own folder under =lists, to which I'm subscribed. In my ideal situation, when I send mail to any of those lists, I want my From: header to be changed to reflect the address with which I'm subscribed to that list; further, if I'm in a list-specific folder and sending mail that isn't to any other list, then I want the from address to also use the address with which I'm subscribed to the list to which the folder corresponds. If that's confusing, here's an example: I'm subscribed to this list, with mail to this list going into =lists/mutt, and to the loganalysis list, with mail to that list going into =lists/loganalysis. I'm subscribed to this list with the address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and to the loganalysis list with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. If I'm in =lists/mutt, and I send a message to the loganalysis list, I want my From: header to be set to , but if I send a message to anyone else from that folder, I want it set to , and if I send a message to this list from any folder, I want it also set to . OK, that should be fairly straightforward--except that the system default address I get also needs to be changed in all non-list folders, as well; I also have a couple of send-hooks that need to be in place in those other non-list folders, and the send-hooks that correspond to individual lists should also be visible in the non-list folders. So if I'm in my inbox, mail should come from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, unless it's to a list, in which case the list address should be used, or it's to exception_person1, in which case a different address entirely should be used. This means that I have to have some sort of default folder-hook . my_hdr From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the mix, just to get the "normal" behaviour I'd want. And since I have some sendhooks of the form send-hook exception_person1 my_hdr From: , I also have to have a default send-hook to set things back: send-hook . my_hdr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should appear before the other send-hooks. OK, but to get the behaviour I want in terms of default address in a given list folder, I also have to do the following: folder-hook =lists/mutt my_hdr From: . And to get the "mail to any list from any folder gets the appropriate list From" behaviour, I also have send-hook [EMAIL PROTECTED] my_hdr From: . But I've got a problem--send hooks always trump folder hooks, because you change into the folder before you start composing a message. So my "folder-hook =lists/mutt" line never takes effect; the very first message I compose in that folder matches one of the send-hooks, and the header gets reset. OK, so I need to have my send-hooks be context dependent, somehow. My next thought was to try: send-hook . my_hdr From: folder-hook =lists/mutt send-hook . my_hdr From: send-hook mutt-users my_hdr From: . That doesn't work quite right, either, however; if I change into =lists/mutt, and then go back to my inbox, the mutt default send-hook stays in effect, and all mail from my inbox goes out with my mutt address. So we revise yet again: folder-hook . send-hook . my_hdr From: folder-hook =lists/mutt send-hook . my_hdr From: send-hook mutt-users my_hdr From: . And that should work, right? Wrong. Here's where I'm getting confused--everything works pretty much the same way as with the previous iteration. I even went in and added some diagnostic messages to my rc.testing file, whose current contents are: set folder="~/mail" # +foo or =foo -> $folder/foo set spoolfile="=inbox" # Incoming mail (!) folder-hook . set edit_hdrs folder-hook . send-hook . my_hdr From: folder-hook . push !echo'Creatingdefaultsend-hooks' folder-hook . send-hook . push !echo'Runningdefault-foldersend-hook' folder-hook =lists/mutt send-hook . my_hdr From: folder-hook =lists/mutt push !echo'Creatingmuttsend-hooks' folder-hook =lists/mutt send-hook . push !echo'Runningmutt-foldersend-hook' send-hook mutt-users my_hdr From: (plus some comments on previous tests). (It sure would be nice if mutt had some option that would tell it to show you each hook that is attempted, in the order in which they are attempted, and ideally the string against which they match if they do in fact match, so that this sort of push+echo stuff wasn't necessary.) OK, so when I start mutt up with /usr/local/bin/mutt -F rc.testing , I see the following: Creating default send-hooks . OK, so that's working fine. Then I change to =lists/mutt, and see: Creating mutt send-hooks Creating default send-hooks . Huh? The default send-hooks should be created first, not second. Well, what happens when I compose a mail to some random address (so the generic mutt-users send-hook isn't matched) fr
Re: Set from shows no affect
At 08:42 -0400 11 Jun 2002, darren chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > send-hook gets executed when you send the message, not when you start a > message. Thus, you see the results for the next message. No, send-hooks get executed before a message is composed, but only after mutt has generated it's own From: header based on $from and possibly $reverse_name. This can be replaced using "my_hdr From:", as has already been noted. -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.schrab.com/aaron/ [Samba] enables open-source fans to stealth their Linux boxes so they look like Microsoft servers that somehow miraculously fail to suck. -- Eric S. Raymond
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
Sweth -- Your description is a little convoluted. Please allow me to attempt to clearly restate your goal and confirm or deny the presentation. In =lists/mutt sending in general (to the list, to me, to your mom) From: mutt@yoursite In =lists/loganalysis sending in general (to the list, to me, to your mom) From: loganalysis@yoursite Anywhere sending to mutt list From: mutt@yoursite sending to loganalysis list From: loganalysis@yoursite If you only wanted the latter, then it would be a piece of cake; all you would need would be send-hooks. If you only wanted the former two, then it would also be a piece of cake; all you would need would be folder-hooks. If you want all three, then it does, indeed, get tricky. I think that the most straightforward approach is to pull all of the send-hooks (both for lists and for exceptional_persons) into a muttrc that you source from within a folder-hook, and then for each list folder construct a folder-hook about like folder-hook =lists/mutt \ 'send-hook . my_hdr From: mutt@yoursite ; \ source $HOME/.mutt/muttrc.sendhooks' so that you reset your "default" send-hook for each list but then still allow the overriding for any returned list address. Note that the above is also untested, and I bet that you'll need at least another set of quotes in that folder-hook. Have at it. I don't know if mutt's debug log will show how it sets addresses or why (which hook it's obeying), but it can't hurt to try it. 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! msg28882/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:22:47PM -0400, Sweth Chandramouli wrote: [...sniiip..] > So, I'm totally confused now. What gives? i don't know. ;-) but i have a suggestion in the form of a question because i don't have time to play with it myself. is it possible to get rid of the "default" hooks and just define hooks for all the folders and all the addresses so that depending on where you are at and who you are sending to the correct from: is set? -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu
bcc on folder-hook
Mutters, I can't figure out how to make a folder-hook that will set the bcc field. Basically whenever I'm in folder "abc", I'd like to bcc an address. I can't figure how to make it work with a send-hook either. I'm thinking something like this: folder-hook abc 'set bcc="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"' But bcc doesn't seem setable like that (I suspect because I'm not yet in the compose context). Or, maybe something like this: macro generic setbcc "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "set bcc" folder-hook abc 'setbcc' Any ideas? -Mike Arrison
Re: bcc on folder-hook
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Mike Arrison wrote: > Mutters, > I can't figure out how to make a folder-hook that will set the > bcc field. Basically whenever I'm in folder "abc", I'd like to bcc an > address. I can't figure how to make it work with a send-hook either. > I'm thinking something like this: > > folder-hook abc 'set bcc="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"' > > But bcc doesn't seem setable like that (I suspect because I'm not yet in > the compose context). Or, maybe something like this: > > macro generic setbcc "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "set bcc" > folder-hook abc 'setbcc' > > Any ideas? folder-hook abc my_hdr Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] untested. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu
Re: resent messages not saved?
* Adam Shostack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-11-02 11:20]: > It seems that messages re-sent (esc-e) are not being saved to my sent > folder. In particular, I have a long message that I want to respond > to in chunks; I used esc-e to re-send it, edit it up, and send it. > When I go into ~/sent (where all my other saved mail is), there's no > copy. FCC: yourself will accomplish this and is a common solution. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
[Slightly OT] Arrgggg! Data Recovery!
I just made a major OOPS: I went to delete an old copy of my ~/Mail directory and accidentally deleted the working copy instead. OOPS! I was able to recover from tape to the last backup, as of mid-May. I have since turned on fetchmail, so I will have recent messages in my files by the time you respond. Now my query: I have a duplicate mail setup on my laptop, procmail & all. I was on a trip from the time of the last backup of my desktop until recently, and all that mail is sitting on the laptop, neatly procmailed, etc. Is there a (fairly) painless way to get the mail from the laptop onto the desktop? Can I simply append files (e.g. "cat /mnt/nfs/laptop/mutt >> mutt"). If I do this, will mutt or any other software get confused because some of the messages are out of date order by almost a month? Is there a way to use procmail? Other tools? Thanks! -- Charles Curley /"\ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ /Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley / \No M$ Word docs in email msg28887/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
wrong In-Reply-To messes up threading
I am using mutt 1.4, and it sometimes gets the threads wrong. The symptom is that some messages of a thread wil appear in an entirely unrelated thread.. My observation is that if someone with mutt-1.2.5 replies to a message by user1, it generates the following header: In-Reply-To: <"from user1"@host1.org> Replies to other messages from user1 in an entirely unrelated thread will also get the same In-Reply-To. my mutt 1.4 seems to conclude that if the Reply-To is identical, then its the same thread. (maybe it even ignores the References: ??) Anyway, I'm not sure who is wrong, maybe both versions?
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
[ you should try to avoid using tabs in mail/news ] Hi, * Sweth Chandramouli [02-06-11 20:30:56 +0200] wrote: > My new project: trying to deal with my mailing lists > correctly. I have a bunch of lists, each with its own > folder under =lists, to which I'm subscribed. Here, too, nothing special. > In my ideal situation, when I send mail to any of those > lists, I want my From: header to be changed to reflect the > address with which I'm subscribed to that list; further, > if I'm in a list-specific folder and sending mail that > isn't to any other list, then I want the from address to > also use the address with which I'm subscribed to the list > to which the folder corresponds. No problem at all. I try to keep my solution simple and it doesn't do your job, but you can expand my version: I still use procmail and since I already have the list address in ~/.procmailrc I put a comment in, which I can grep with a shell script. You could do that, too, and put your From: address somewhere in there. My folders are named ``IN.local_part_of_the_list_adresses''. If you get my point, you know that you can use a shell script to write: a) send-hooks for all mailinglists setting your From: and b) use the same information to generate folder-hooks. Both from ~/.procmailrc only (I do it this way to not forget anything). One more line to produce default values is no problem. [ lots of ... ] > So, I'm totally confused now. What gives? Well, I only had a quick look at it. I ran into the same problem, how to maintain a large set of settings and hooks by hand -- gave up and happily run a shell script once a day to clean stuff up (some hooks are auto-generated and sourced, others are separated to be maintained by hand): ,- | pdmef@klaus:~$ egrep -v ^($|#) ~/.muttrc | wc -l | 30 `- ,- | pdmef@klaus:~$ egrep -v ^($|#|source) ~/.muttrc | wc -l | 0 `- Cheers, Rocco
Re: [Slightly OT] Arrgggg! Data Recovery!
> Can I simply append files (e.g. "cat /mnt/nfs/laptop/mutt >> mutt"). If I do
> this, will mutt or any other software get confused because some of the
> messages are out of date order by almost a month?
My favorite way to handle this, assuming you don't have too many folders, is
to just change into the "source" folder, tag all messages ("T."), and then
save all tagged messages to the "destination" folder.
If you use mbox, you can just cat the folders together.
If you use maildir, you can just copy every file in cur/ and new/ from one
folder to the other.
--
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research
msg28890/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Replying without "modifying"
Hi! I was just wondering if there is some configuration in mutt that makes it possible for you to reply to a message without actually "modifying" the original message (used when confirming mailinglists subscriptions), all I get now is just "Aborted unmodified message.". If there isn't, this might be something to implement? Thanks. /winkle -- |Mail address |Home telephonenumber|E-mail address | |Johan Svedberg |+46 (0)90 49 139|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Hästhagsvägen 2|| | |905 96 Umeå|Cellular telephonenumber|WWW address | |Sweden |+46 (0)70 639 49 82 |http://www.acc.umu.se/~winkle| --
Re: Replying without "modifying"
Johan -- ...and then Johan Svedberg said... % % Hi! Hello! % % I was just wondering if there is some configuration in mutt that makes it possible for you to reply to a message without actually "modifying" the original message (used when confirming mailinglists subscriptions), all I get now is just "Aborted unmodified message.". If there isn't, this might be something to implement? I don't know if 1.2.5.1 has it (though any editor certainly has the ability to insert line breaks at a reasonable width, like 72 chars or so), but 1.4 and much of the 1.3.x tree sets the timestamp on the created file to "one second ago" so that even if your editing is blindingly fast you'll still update the timestamp and mutt will thus think that the file has been modified and happily continue. If forcing a write doesn't do it for you, wait two seconds before forcing your write until you upgrade to 1.4 and that will take care of the "abort unmodified?" messages. % % Thanks. HTH & HAND % % /winkle :-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! msg28892/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Slightly OT] Arrgggg! Data Recovery!
Hi, * Charles Curley [02-06-11 22:21:29 +0200] wrote: [...] > Is there a (fairly) painless way to get the mail from the > laptop onto the desktop? > Can I simply append files (e.g. "cat /mnt/nfs/laptop/mutt > >> mutt"). If you use mbox, yes. If you've already set up procmail there's most likely also 'formail'. With formail you can just pipe your mbox file into it and let procmail run over every mail again. Once the work is done, you can limit your index to duplicate messages and easily delete them. Dates, months, etc. are not important (if you hooks and date patterns within mutt, then it will matter) (the oldest may I got was even send before 1970...). Cheers, Rocco
Re: wrong In-Reply-To messes up threading
Hi, * Christoph Bugel [02-06-11 22:21:30 +0200] wrote: > My observation is that if someone with mutt-1.2.5 replies > to a message by user1, it generates the following header: > In-Reply-To: <"from user1"@host1.org> The problem is that mutt cannot reliably distinct between a message-id and a mail adress if both are given in angle brackets. IIRC mutt assumes that a local part of a mail address is at most 8 characters -- everything else is considered to be a message-id. I don't have a better solution. There's only one real solution (besides writing more robust standards): only put those message-ids in the In-Reply-To field you're really replying to. Cheers, Rocco
Re: Replying without "modifying"
[ please wrap lines at something around 72 characters ] Hi, * Johan Svedberg [02-06-11 23:36:23 +0200] wrote: > I was just wondering if there is some configuration in > mutt that makes it possible for you to reply to a message > without actually "modifying" the original message (used > when confirming mailinglists subscriptions), all I get now > is just "Aborted unmodified message.". Right. You can write a macro with a kind of null-editor. That means a simple call like 'sleep 2; touch %s' as your editor. Cheers, Rocco
Re: Replying without "modifying"
* Johan Svedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-06-11 22:59 +0200]: > I was just wondering if there is some configuration in mutt that makes it possible >for you to reply to a message without actually "modifying" the original message (used >when confirming mailinglists subscriptions), all I get now is just "Aborted >unmodified message.". If there isn't, this might be something to implement? I don't know if it exists in mutt 1.2.5, but here is an option abort_unmodified, which controls mutt's behaviour in this situation. Nicolas
Re: wrong In-Reply-To messes up threading
On 2002-06-11, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Christoph Bugel [02-06-11 22:21:30 +0200] wrote: > > My observation is that if someone with mutt-1.2.5 replies > > to a message by user1, it generates the following header: > > > In-Reply-To: <"from user1"@host1.org> > > The problem is that mutt cannot reliably distinct between a > message-id and a mail adress if both are given in angle > brackets. IIRC mutt assumes that a local part of a mail > address is at most 8 characters -- everything else is > considered to be a message-id. I don't have a better > solution. hmmm... now that you mention it, yes, I did notice something that's connected to the string's length. but still, I thought that *anything* after the In-Reply-To: is supposed to be a message-id? Quote from RFC 2822: The "Message-ID:" field contains a single unique message identifier. The "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" field each contain one or more unique message identifiers, optionally separated by CFWS. So it seems that <"from user1"@host1.org> is not a valid thing to put after the In-Reply-To header, and since mutt-1.2.5?? does exactly that, I wonder if I'll have to live with broken threads until everyone will have stopped using mutt-1.2.5? > There's only one real solution (besides writing more robust > standards): only put those message-ids in the In-Reply-To > field you're really replying to. :-). Unfortunately, I don't have much control over what MUA other mailinglist participants are using. Anyway, I'm interested to know if this is considered to be a serious bug in mutt-1.2.5. BTW, I don't understand the duplication between 'In-Reply-To:' and 'References:', when mutt has to find the parent child relation between messages; seems like too much information can lead to ambiguity : In-Reply-To claims X but References claims Y. who do I believe?
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 09:42:50PM -, mutt-users-digest wrote:
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:04:03 -0500
> From: David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
>
> Your description is a little convoluted. Please allow me to attempt to
> clearly restate your goal and confirm or deny the presentation.
>
> In =3Dlists/mutt
> sending in general (to the list, to me, to your mom)
> From: mutt@yoursite
>
> In =3Dlists/loganalysis
> sending in general (to the list, to me, to your mom)
> From: loganalysis@yoursite
>
> Anywhere
> sending to mutt list
> From: mutt@yoursite
> sending to loganalysis list
> From: loganalysis@yoursite
I'd say that that's accurate, except I'd change the
phrases "sending in general" to "sending in general except to another
list", which I think is what you meant anyways.
David continues:
> If you want all three, then it does, indeed, get tricky. I think that
> the most straightforward approach is to pull all of the send-hooks (both
> for lists and for exceptional_persons) into a muttrc that you source
> from within a folder-hook, and then for each list folder construct a
> folder-hook about like
>
> folder-hook =3Dlists/mutt \
> 'send-hook . my_hdr From: mutt@yoursite ; \
> source $HOME/.mutt/muttrc.sendhooks'
, which Peter Abplanalp and Rocco Rutte also suggested in
one form or another. I had simplified things greatly in my rc.testing
file to track down the problem and then make it clear for my post; the
actual configs are generated by a perl script parsing XML config files
for ...
$ find ~/mail -type f -print | wc -l
994
... 994 different mailboxes and ...
find ~/.mutt/addresses -type f -print | \
> while read LINE ; do wc -l $LINE ; done | \
> awk '{LINE+=$1};END{print LINE}'
812
... 812 different entries in my address book. If I need
to, I _could_ have the script generate every possible combination of
mailboxes and recipients, but even given that not all of them have hooks
defined, it's not a pretty picture; if I can avoid doing a cartesian
join, I'd prefer to do so--I'd estimate that that could use up as much
as 20 megs of RAM for the hooks (assuming they are stored in text format
and not some more compact representation). For that matter, I have no
way of knowing until I figure out what's going on with the simple
two-folder scenario of =lists/mutt and =inbox (from the rc.testing file),
then I could well run into the exact same problem for my cartesian join.
So, does anybody know why I'm seeing the behaviour I'm
seeing? Is it a bug, or a "feature"? David -- I can't find anything
in the manpage about a debug log; is it a compile-time option?
TIA,
Sweth.
--
Sweth Chandramouli Idiopathic Systems Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idiopathic.net/
mutt-users-digest uses gbnet address
I've been castigated a couple of times for using the gbnet address for sending mail to mutt-users, and it confused me, because I thought I had changed that definition in my configs; I just noticed that the problem might be that mutt-users-digest (which I receive) sets the reply-to to the gbnet address. Is there any way that that can be changed? -- Sweth. -- Sweth Chandramouli Idiopathic Systems Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idiopathic.net/
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
Sweth -- ...and then Sweth Chandramouli said... % ... % I'd say that that's accurate, except I'd change the % phrases "sending in general" to "sending in general except to another % list", which I think is what you meant anyways. It was; good enough. % ... % > folder-hook =3Dlists/mutt \ % > 'send-hook . my_hdr From: mutt@yoursite ; \ % > source $HOME/.mutt/muttrc.sendhooks' % , which Peter Abplanalp and Rocco Rutte also suggested in % one form or another. I had simplified things greatly in my rc.testing % file to track down the problem and then make it clear for my post; the % actual configs are generated by a perl script parsing XML config files % for ... ... Good heavens. You are one sick puppy ;-) ... % So, does anybody know why I'm seeing the behaviour I'm % seeing? Is it a bug, or a "feature"? David -- I can't find anything % in the manpage about a debug log; is it a compile-time option? When you build your mutt you can enable or disable debugging, and then when you run mutt with -d you'll get a debug log file (perhaps debug.log) in the current directory. Check out mutt -v | grep DEBUG to see if you get +DEBUG or not; if you don't have that, then you'll want to recompile. % % TIA, % % Sweth. % % -- % Sweth Chandramouli Idiopathic Systems Consulting % [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idiopathic.net/ 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! msg28900/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dealing with top-posters in Mutt/Vim?
--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! David T-G spake thus: > Rob, et al -- >=20 > [Even if Sean sent to @gbnet.net that doesn't mean you should, young man.] Nah, I let mutt figure out where to send the reply. I have better things to do ;) > % algorithms, there is *no*way* that you can correct TOFU. Your best bet > % is to just make a vim macro that copies all the text from before the > % quote to after the quote. >=20 > And how is that not a good start, and a programmatic one at that? It doesn't really acomplish much; just changes TOFU into TUFO. > Unfortunately, it doesn't *really* solve the problem, since now you > have a huge bottom-post (not necessarily a huge-bottom post, though > coincidence isn't ruled out ;-) and still have to clean it up. And you thought TOFU tasted bad ;) > My answer to top-posters is to go to the first of their quoted lines and > delete from there to my sig and then reply in context. Too bad if they > don't like it :-) The entire TOFU mentality can, I believe, be summed up > as 1) throw away all but the most recent message (assuming you keep any in > the first place) in the thread, since the entire thread is self-contained, > and 2) if anyone is new s/he will easily be able to read the whole thread > and catch up. I don't subscribe to either of those viewpoints. I'm #1. Keep the TO, nuke the FU. --=20 Rob 'Feztaa' Park http://members.shaw.ca/feztaa/ -- Delay not, Caesar. Read it instantly. -- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar" 3,1 =20 Here is a letter, read it at your leisure. -- Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice" 5,1 =20 [Quoted in "VMS Internals and Data Structures", V4.4, when referring to I/O system services.] --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9Bn8UPTh2iSBKeccRAt9rAJ48pFdSMl/BoPYypN+Q9LXcY8QOEwCfcUGT TuHF5cXGwOpQY84svAyNIDM= =S770 -END PGP SIGNATURE- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--
"Two word" alias
Hi! I was just wondering if it's possible to have "two word" aliases? Like alias foo bar John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Using "" doesn't seem to do it either, any ideas? /winkle -- |Mail address |Home telephonenumber|E-mail address | |Johan Svedberg |+46 (0)90 49 139|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Hästhagsvägen 2|| | |905 96 Umeå|Cellular telephonenumber|WWW address | |Sweden |+46 (0)70 639 49 82 |http://www.acc.umu.se/~winkle| --
Re: "Two word" alias
Johan -- ...and then Johan Svedberg said... % % Hi! Hello! % % I was just wondering if it's possible to have "two word" aliases? Like % alias foo bar John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Using "" doesn't seem to do it The closest you'll be able to get is "foo.bar" or "foo_bar" if not just plain old foobar. Sorry! % either, any ideas? Not in mutt, but abook or another external address query might support it. % % /winkle 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! msg28903/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: More send-hook (+folder-hook) questions (long)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:22:47PM -0400, Sweth Chandramouli wrote: [...] Forgive me for not responding to each part of your message, but I was getting confused, too. One of the things to keep in mind when you're using folder-hooks to add send-hooks is that mutt will just keep adding new send-hooks to the end of its list of send-hooks. That can lead to unexpected behavior and make it difficult to get the behavior you want. One solution to that problem is to use the 'unhook send-hook' command as the first folder-hook command, like this: folder-hook . unhook send-hook folder-hook folder1 send-hook . 'my_hdr From: my_folder1_address' folder-hook folder2 send-hook . 'my_hdr From: my_folder2_address' folder-hook . 'send-hook "~t someone_special" "unmy_hdr From:"' folder-hook . 'send-hook "~t someone_else_special" "my_hdr From: my_other_address"' The idea here is to first clear all the send-hooks, then set any folder-dependent default send-hooks, then set any folder-independent, recipient-specific send-hooks. You can extend this idea to include folder-dependent, recipient-specific send-hooks as well. HTH, Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
Re: [dan@hld.ca: Re: [oclug] GPG and mutt]
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 09:26:31PM -0400, Brenda J. Butler wrote: > On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 08:30:40PM -0400, Brenda J. Butler wrote: > > > > I'm trying to use GPG via mutt, and I find there is an annoying > > two-second wait every time I hit a signed message in the index > > while GPG verifies if the signature is ok. I'd like to turn off > > automatic verification, but I can't find the command to verify > > the signature "on demand". Is there one? > > > > I'm not keen on setting pgp_verify_sig to ask-yes or ask-no, > > that's not much more efficient than just waiting 2 seconds > > for the check to be done. > > > > There is a command to verify the old-style PGP signature, I want > > a user-initiated command to verify if the GPG signature is ok. > > I'm running mutt version 1.3.27i (2002-01-22) and gpg version 1.0.6, > both part of Debian 3.0 unofficial (cd made in March). Although I haven't tried it yet myself, I've heard reports that signature verification is significantly faster in gpg 1.0.7 Walt msg28905/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
