Synopsis: mutt group syntax is undocumented
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: pdmef
State-Changed-When: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:39:01 +0100
State-Changed-Why:
Fixed in both muttrc(5) and manual.
Comment added by pdmef on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:39:01 +0100
Synopsis: feature request: progress indicator when fetching multiple mails
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: pdmef
State-Changed-When: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:47:59 +0100
State-Changed-Why:
Recent mutt have progress indicators for search and limit.
Please re-open if this doesn't s
Synopsis: Configurable umask
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: pdmef
State-Changed-When: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:54:24 +0100
State-Changed-Why:
Implemented in http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/537672d8fefb
via $umask.
Comment added by pdmef on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:54:24 +0100
Hi,
* Brendan Cully [07-03-14 00:00:06 -0700] wrote:
http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/61b2845af4da
changeset: 4980:61b2845af4da
user:Brendan Cully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
date:Tue Mar 13 22:40:07 2007 -0700
summary: Fully expand $docdir when building Muttrc (closes: #2832)
No
Synopsis: Mutt can't find the manual
Comment added by pdmef on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:18:37 +0100
It isn't fixed as it here now contains ${prefix}/doc.
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte [07-03-16 09:18:49 +] wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I didn't know that Muttrc gets installed to Muttrc.dist which has
the correct value...
bye, Rocco
--
:wq!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-15-07 21:28]:
[...]
I can think of two compromises:
* as Thomas Dickey suggested, detect gpg at compile time and insert
the correct path into the installed muttrc files;
this might be a problem for those u
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Brendan Cully 2007-03-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd like to hear some more concrete examples of the dangers of looking
up gpg in the path...
Ack. Just because gpg is a 'security' application doesn't make running
"ls" instead of "/bin/ls" less danger
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Thomas Dickey 2007-03-15 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The reason for the absolute paths is very likely to ensure that it
does not pick up some random program named "gpg". (Making it configurable
from a single point is probably a better way to go).
The pr
Synopsis: Mutt can't find the manual
Comment added by pdmef on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:04:42 +0100
Hi, and sorry for the late followup.
Imho there are 3 issues left in the umask handling:
#1: main.c sets umask(077) unconditionally. Should be removed.
#2: Even after fixing #1, the original process umask is not respected
when creating files. One could argue that there should be a way to
tell mu
www.mutt.org is currently down, it looks like the data may be gone
forever (well on this system here). We suffered a disk crash. Mail
should be working.
It will take a couple of days to move things such that the website can
be put back in place.
Sorry for the inconvenience
Steve
--
NetTek Ltd
[Replying to list]
Re: David Champion 2007-03-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > case DT_NUM:
> > + if (mutt_strcmp (p->option, "umask") == 0)
> > + umask(Umask_orig | p->init);
> > + /* fallthrough */
>
> Maybe change from $umask to a umask command?
> set umask=0007
> becomes
>
# HG changeset patch
# User Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Date 1174055839 -3600
# Node ID c82435f2db41fd63b91cfbb9e7f820ac9839e445
# Parent 347824928102661e6dea3b4f411324320e755a07
Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="ssh host
sendmail".
diff -r 347824928102 -r
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Christoph Berg wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Date 1174055839 -3600
# Node ID c82435f2db41fd63b91cfbb9e7f820ac9839e445
# Parent 347824928102661e6dea3b4f411324320e755a07
Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="ssh host
> sendmail".
I'm curious: does the ssh client binary tend to move around the filesystem
randomly on these peoples' systems?
I don't think this is a great change. Many people unw
Re: Thomas Dickey 2007-03-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >- execv (path, args);
> >+ execvp (path, args);
> same advice (it should be explicitly configurable).
The default for $sendmail is /usr/sbin/sendmail -some-args, so it is
already configured.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://ww
Re: Charles Cazabon 2007-03-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="ssh host
> > sendmail".
>
> I'm curious: does the ssh client binary tend to move around the filesystem
> randomly on these peoples' systems?
No, but mutt just says "exec error" w
On Friday, 16 March 2007 at 13:15, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Hi, and sorry for the late followup.
>
> Imho there are 3 issues left in the umask handling:
>
> #1: main.c sets umask(077) unconditionally. Should be removed.
>
> #2: Even after fixing #1, the original process umask is not respected
> w
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="ssh host
sendmail".
I'm curious: does the ssh client binary tend to move around the filesystem
randomly on these peoples' systems?
I usually
On Thursday, 15 March 2007 at 17:40, Christoph Berg wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> # Date 1173976786 -3600
> # Node ID 50bc0121e4a8b1c638fa56451d477a7cf3b1cbce
> # Parent 5c2f2072a4dbfa69f2db7a93ae52b984f65e165c
> Remove absolute paths.
How about this
* On 2007.03.16, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Brendan Cully" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + AC_PATH_PROG([GPG], [gpg], [/usr/bin/gpg],
> [/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/sw/bin:/opt/local/bin])
I like this. Other paths to consider:
/usr/sfw/bin Sun Freeware
/opt/sfw/bin Sun Freeware
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:54:56PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> * On 2007.03.16, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> * "Brendan Cully" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + AC_PATH_PROG([GPG], [gpg], [/usr/bin/gpg],
> > [/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/sw/bin:/opt/local/bin])
>
> I like this. Other paths to c
>Number: 2851
>Category: mutt
>Synopsis: cannot attach files in dirs with a "cur" subdirectory
>Confidential: no
>Severity: minor
>Priority: medium
>Responsible:mutt-dev
>State: open
>Keywords:
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arriv
On 15Mar2007 20:25, David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I can think of two compromises:
| * as Thomas Dickey suggested, detect gpg at compile time and insert
| the correct path into the installed muttrc files;
I would vote for this one. Maybe insert /usr/bin (and other standard places,
b
Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:04:39PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>> Yay, but unless I'm mistaken, that's hidden on the command line
>> interface when switching folders, and not easily accessible without
>> re-entering password or even as a pop-up sidebar
On 2007-03-17 08:16:15 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 15Mar2007 20:25, David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I can think of two compromises:
> | * as Thomas Dickey suggested, detect gpg at compile time and insert
> | the correct path into the installed muttrc files;
>
> I would vote
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:16:38AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-03-17 08:16:15 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > On 15Mar2007 20:25, David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I can think of two compromises:
> > > * as Thomas Dickey suggested, detect gpg at compile time and insert
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:11:18AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Yup, these are just too many keypresses if you're not using that
> folder=... stuff.
I still can't quite figure out if you're reporting this as a bug or not. :)
If you are, then how would you propose changing it?
--
Paul
signa
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:00:06PM -0700, William Yardley wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to set a sane-ish default in the example, and
> assume that if the user prefers to install in a different place later
> on, they can make the appropriate change in their .muttrc.
Agreed.
--
Paul
signatu
Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:11:18AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>> Yup, these are just too many keypresses if you're not using that
>> folder=... stuff.
>
> I still can't quite figure out if you're reporting this as a bug or not. :)
> If you are, then h
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:40:27AM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> > setting, and I also don't think that any person interested in security
> > should run with garbage in $PATH. I would also guess that it's just as
>
> That's fine, and I would agree, but the person you're dealing with should be
> assu
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 03:40:40PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Use execvp to call sendmail, useful for people trying sendmail="ssh host
> sendmail".
God, no. Please stop trying to open holes in mutt. If you want to do
the above, specify the absolute path to your ssh binary in your
muttrc.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > I'm curious: does the ssh client binary tend to move around the
> > filesystem randomly on these peoples' systems?
>
> No, but mutt just says "exec error" which is in no way enlightening on
> what is actually going wrong.
So you
Hi, I apologize if this is an often brought up subject; I just joined
the mailing list today.
I'm currently very pleased with Debian mutt. Unfortunately, Debian is
reliant on many patches, most of them are listed in the PatchList in
the mutt wiki. The Debian team is reluctant to add too many more
* Fri Mar 16 2007 Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > I'm curious: does the ssh client binary tend to move around the
> > > filesystem randomly on these peoples' systems?
> >
> > No, but mutt just says "exec error" which is in no
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Hi, and sorry for the late followup.
>
> Imho there are 3 issues left in the umask handling:
>
> #1: main.c sets umask(077) unconditionally. Should be removed.
I'm sorry I missed the start of this thread. The umask patch is, IMO,
On 17Mar2007 02:38, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I still can't quite figure out if you're reporting this as a bug or not. :)
| > If you are, then how would you propose changing it? [...]
| Seriously, the problem I'm facing is that I want t
On 17Mar2007 01:12, Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:00:06PM -0700, William Yardley wrote:
| > I think it's reasonable to set a sane-ish default in the example, and
| > assume that if the user prefers to install in a different place later
| > on, they can make the
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:57:17PM -0700, Kyle Hubert wrote:
> I'm currently very pleased with Debian mutt. Unfortunately, Debian is
> reliant on many patches, most of them are listed in the PatchList in
> the mutt wiki. The Debian team is reluctant to add too many more
> patches to mutt, especial
2 new changesets in mutt:
http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/aa96e6137c69
changeset: 5006:aa96e6137c69
tag: tip
user:Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
date:Fri Mar 16 11:21:59 2007 -0700
summary: Fixed segfault when attempting to open an imaps mailbox when mutt
is not
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:05:49AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Hi, and sorry for the late followup.
> >
> > Imho there are 3 issues left in the umask handling:
> >
> > #1: main.c sets umask(077) unconditionally. Should be remove
42 matches
Mail list logo
