On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:56:40PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> I think it's a good argument in this case because I expect to
> always get a copy of all sent mails. And if I store it before I
> send it (like it's now) this is true, otherwise it isn't.
False; it is POSSIBLE that it may not be tr
On Mon, Jul 25, Olaf Hering wrote:
> In my setup smtp_pass= is empty so that mutt asks for password before
> sending. smtp_url= is smtp://user@host. If I fatfinger the password the
> message to be sent stored in record= anyway, then mutt asks for the smtp
> password again. For each iteration anoth
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:18:21PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
>> But that's only true as long as the computer doesn't crash
>
> In general, this is really not a good argument for virtually any case
> that affects typical users. It might be a good argument for an
> application that is running on ha
On 2016-08-04 12:31:39 +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> But that's only true as long as the computer doesn't crash (mutt
> stores mails in /tmp which is either a tmpfs or emptied on
> reboot).
This is the default, but the user can choose. More importantly,
the machine can crash or there could be a l
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:31:39PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:15:43PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > So long as Mutt retains the original message, the fact that it could
> > not write the message to Fcc is not particularly problematic. It's
> > already
If sendmail fails user is notified and I think there are many options to
save the message. For example if I press q I can postpone the message.
If mutt is used in script and sendmail fails, then non-zero exit status
is sufficient. Script should do whatever is needed and mutt does not
need to tras
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> But that's only true as long as the computer doesn't crash (mutt
> stores mails in /tmp which is either a tmpfs or emptied on
> reboot).
2. Temporary Files
Mutt uses many temporary files for viewing messages, verifying digital
signatures, etc. As lon
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:15:43PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> [snip]
>
> So long as Mutt retains the original message, the fact that it could
> not write the message to Fcc is not particularly problematic. It's
> already been pointed out in this thread that you DO have a local
> copy... The fil
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:36:06PM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 02:46AM +0200 Vincent Lefevre (vinc...@vinc17.org)
> muttered:
> > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 02:58:51PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> And if it is not possible to store the message anywhere in a safe
> location, then with the "store first" method, this would mean that
> it is not possible to send the message, which can be even worse.
Not really. If you really wa
On 2016-08-03 12:36:06 +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 02:46AM +0200 Vincent Lefevre (vinc...@vinc17.org)
> muttered:
> > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
>
> NO, th
Hi,
* On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 02:46AM +0200 Vincent Lefevre (vinc...@vinc17.org)
muttered:
> Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
NO, this was what mutt was doing long ago. The current behaviour was
intr
On 2016-07-29 12:35:31 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I think that the right solution would be to prompt the user for
> > retrying. The user should have the choice between:
> >
> > 1. Retry (default).
> > 2. Choose a different fold
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-07-27 15:43:40 +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:46:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > > sendmail and *only* if sendmail retur
Hi,
* On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 11:33AM +0100 Ian Collier (ian.coll...@cs.ox.ac.uk)
muttered:
> In the proposed situation, Mutt sends the message first and then tries
> to record it. If the latter action fails, the mail is lost *or* Mutt
> has to have a new menu screen that says "saving the outgoing m
On 2016-07-28 11:33:16 +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> So, in the current situation Mutt is recording the message first, then
> sending it. If the record fails, Mutt can report this and return to
> the options screen.
This is particularly annoying as if the message can't be saved,
it can't be sent. T
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:40:22PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 03:43:40PM +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:46:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > > sendmail and *only* if sendm
On 2016-07-27 15:43:40 +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:46:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
>
> What happens if mutt is unable to store
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 03:43:40PM +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:46:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> > sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
>
> What happens if mutt is una
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:46:18AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Mutt should store the message to the Sent folder *after* running
> sendmail and *only* if sendmail returned with a zero exit status.
What happens if mutt is unable to store the message because the IMAP
server is down or the partiti
On 2016-07-26 07:01:57 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Vincent Lefevre [07-26-16 06:52]:
> > If I use
> >
> > set sendmail=/bin/false
> >
> > this is indeed wrong: each time I try to send the message, a copy of
> > the message is stored in $record, which gives the false impression
> > that
* Vincent Lefevre [07-26-16 06:52]:
> On 2016-07-26 11:22:43 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:26:16AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 04:39PM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> > > > Am 25. Juli 2016 14:52:27 MESZ, schrieb Michael T
On 2016-07-26 11:22:43 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:26:16AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 04:39PM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> > > Am 25. Juli 2016 14:52:27 MESZ, schrieb Michael Tatge :
> > >
> > > >No. Sending from the com
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:26:16AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 04:39PM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> > Am 25. Juli 2016 14:52:27 MESZ, schrieb Michael Tatge :
> >
> > >No. Sending from the command line, in scripts, the error might come up
> > >later during d
Hi,
* On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 04:39PM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> Am 25. Juli 2016 14:52:27 MESZ, schrieb Michael Tatge :
>
> >No. Sending from the command line, in scripts, the error might come up
> >later during delivery,...
>
> Have you actually tried it with smtp_pass= ? Ther
Am 25. Juli 2016 14:52:27 MESZ, schrieb Michael Tatge :
>No. Sending from the command line, in scripts, the error might come up
>later during delivery,...
Have you actually tried it with smtp_pass= ? There is no interaction and as a
result no password and as a result no mail gets created.
Olaf
* On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 09:55AM +0200 Oswald Buddenhagen
(oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de) muttered:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:38:10AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> > * On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 08:47AM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> > > For each iteration another copy of the message to be
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:38:10AM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> * On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 08:47AM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> > For each iteration another copy of the message to be sent is stored in
> > record
>
> in general that's a good think(tm). If sending fails for whatever r
Hi,
* On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 08:47AM +0200 Olaf Hering (o...@aepfle.de) muttered:
> For each iteration another copy of the message to be sent is stored in
> record
in general that's a good think(tm). If sending fails for whatever reason
you don't loose the mail you where just trying to send, becaus
In my setup smtp_pass= is empty so that mutt asks for password before
sending. smtp_url= is smtp://user@host. If I fatfinger the password the
message to be sent stored in record= anyway, then mutt asks for the smtp
password again. For each iteration another copy of the message to be
sent is stored
30 matches
Mail list logo
