Re: Local alternative to Re:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:36:10PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:27:54PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:31:21PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote: > > > I'd like to have mutt put 'Sv:' instead of 'Re:' when I reply to > > > messages, but can't find how to do it. > > > > Re: is not from English, it's from Latin (and therefore local to no > > one, since it's a dead language), and if I recall correctly it is > > actually specified in the RFCs. > > Indeed: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt > > 3.6.5. Informational fields > [...] > The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string > identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the > field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", > in the matter of) followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field > body of the original message. If this is done, only one instance of > the literal string "Re: " ought to be used since use of other > strings or more than one instance can lead to undesirable > consequences. that is nice and clever but I think it would be much better to regard "re" as abbreviation of "responsum" - answer. As an abbreviation of "res" it would be highly redundant to the "subject" keyword and not explain why it is used in answers/followups only. Richard --- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers pgpQCHy94jlmn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Local alternative to Re:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:12:17AM +0100, Richard wrote: > > The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string > > identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the > > field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", > > in the matter of) followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field > > that is nice and clever but I think it would be much better to regard > "re" as abbreviation of "responsum" - answer. As an abbreviation of "res" > it would be highly redundant to the "subject" keyword and not explain why > it is used in answers/followups only. Bear in mind it's not really a new usage. The OED has several examples of "re" in English text going back to at least 1707, with Latin "res" as their etymology for it. They also mention a newer form (starting in the early 1900s) "re.", which they say "probably results from reanalysis as showing an abbreviation for 'regarding'". -Dave Dodge
mutt doesn't ask for passphrase
I have a strange problem here that mutt doesn't ask me for the passphrase when I want to sign/encrypt a message. Signing/encrypting using a key that has no passphrase works fine, though. Actually mutt seems to ask in the "background" but the prompt immediately returns. Thus, I get an error when sending the message saying that I used a bad passphrase. I use GnuPG with settings according to the mutt wiki: ## set pgp_clearsign_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --output - --passphrase-fd 0 --armor --textmode --clearsign %?a?-u %a? %f" set pgp_decode_command="gpg %?p?--passphrase-fd 0? --no-verbose --batch --output - %f" set pgp_decrypt_command="gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --no-verbose --batch --output - %f" set pgp_encrypt_only_command="/usr/lib/mutt/pgpewrap gpg --batch --quiet --no-verbose --output - --encrypt --textmode --armor --always-trust --encrypt-to 0x42828A3B -- -r %r -- %f" set pgp_encrypt_sign_command="/usr/lib/mutt/pgpewrap gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --batch --quiet --no-verbose --textmode --output - --encrypt --sign %?a?-u %a? --armor --always-trust --encrypt-to 0x42828A3B -- -r %r -- %f" set pgp_export_command="gpg --no-verbose --export --armor %r" set pgp_getkeys_command = "gpg --keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net --recv-keys %r " # default: '' set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from" set pgp_import_command="gpg --no-verbose --import -v %f" set pgp_list_pubring_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --with-colons --list-keys %r" set pgp_list_secring_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --with-colons --list-secret-keys %r" set pgp_sign_as = '0x42828A3B' set pgp_sign_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --output - --passphrase-fd 0 --armor --detach-sign --textmode %?a?-u %a? %f" set pgp_sort_keys = 'date' # default: 'address' set pgp_timeout = '1800' set pgp_use_gpg_agent = yes # default: no set pgp_verify_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --output - --verify %s %f" set pgp_verify_key_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --fingerprint --check-sigs %r" ## So I'm pretty curious why I don't get a prompt and since I'm totally new to mutt I have no idea where to look besides the pgp portion.
Re: mutt doesn't ask for passphrase
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 05:13:12PM +0100, Christoph Möbius wrote: > I have a strange problem here that mutt doesn't ask me for the passphrase when > I want to sign/encrypt a message. > > Signing/encrypting using a key that has no passphrase works fine, though. > > Actually mutt seems to ask in the "background" but the prompt immediately > returns. Thus, I get an error when sending the message saying that I used a > bad > passphrase. I use GnuPG with settings according to the mutt wiki: > > set pgp_sign_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --output - --passphrase-fd 0 > --armor --detach-sign --textmode %?a?-u %a? %f" > set pgp_encrypt_only_command="pgpewrap gpg --batch --quiet --no-verbose > --output - --encrypt --textmode --armor --always-trust --encrypt-to > 0x42828A3B -- -r %r -- %f" > set pgp_encrypt_sign_command="pgpewrap gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --batch --quiet > --no-verbose --textmode --output - --encrypt --sign %?a?-u %a? --armor > --always-trust --encrypt-to 0x42828A3B -- -r %r -- %f" The following works for me: set pgp_sign_command="gpg --no-verbose --batch --quiet --output - %?p?--passphrase-fd 0? --armor --detach-sign --textmode %?a?-u %a? %f" set pgp_encrypt_only_command="pgpewrap gpg --batch --quiet --no-verbose --output - --encrypt --textmode --armor --always-trust -- -r %r -- %f" set pgp_encrypt_sign_command="pgpewrap gpg %?p?--passphrase-fd 0? --batch --quiet --no-verbose --textmode --output - --encrypt --sign %?a?-u %a? --armor --always-trust -- -r %r -- %f" Dennis
