On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:20:41PM +0200, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> is there a new release of mutt (1.5.1i) available?
this is the cvs version. it hasn't been "released" afaik.
--
Peter Abplanalp
PGP: pgp.mit.edu
msg30874/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:33:23PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>Alternatively, I don't suppose it's possible to use send-hook to put
>the outgoing mail through awk, to generate X-Topic from Fcc, before
>it is scrubbed? Now that would allow me to go to town!
i would suggest you cr
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:32:19PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-11 05:46]:
> > No, because the address subscribed to this list is johan-mutt and I have
> >
> > #cat .qmail-mutt
> > ~/Maildir/.mutt/
> >
> > That's a lot better that filtering based on som
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:11:22AM +1000, Iain Truskett wrote:
> :0:
> * ^Sender: owner-mutt-(dev|users)@mutt.org
> apps-mutt/
the first line can actually be written as follows:
:0
the second colon tells procmail to lock an mbox file which
isn't necessary for maildir.
--
Peter Abplanalp
PGP:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can
> be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others.
> I'm not sure why they think they have to be but its just the select few
> self-appointed/sel
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others
> are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit
> down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much
> bandwidth is used for
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:00:49PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> Are there good manners?
yes, there are. i am going to make an assumption here and
assume that english is not your first language (no slight
intended.) let's say you and two other people are talking,
one speaks your native language and t
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:31:54PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> Yes, but it's much less likely to happen... a spammer would have to go
> to a lot of effort (comparatively) to sign up for a list like this...
> and spamming a list of largely technical people would be dumb anyway.
i disagree. it wo
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:44:51PM -0400, krjw wrote:
> Thank you for the flame. It's the first one I've received since being
> on this list for less than a day.
you'll have to excuse sven and you don't really want to antagonize
him. he knows a lot about mutt. lighten up. it's all good. btw
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:37:30AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 23:29]:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:21:53AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> > > if your boss behaves stupid and you play along - does that help?
> >
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:21:53AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Sven Guckes wrote:
> > the problem is that M$ does not play according to the rules.
> > it's time to give up compatibility with them and let them
> > feel that they are using bad software. let *th
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 01:01:13AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 20:56]:
> > As for version numbers, there's nothing wrong with them
> > unless they are advertised to potentially malicious users.
> > Assuming a given version of a given MUA has a known security
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 12:55:18AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> * Michael Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 17:26]:
> > At work, I use Linux and have been using Mutt and Sylpheed.
> > Yesterday, my boss complained about the format of my e-mails.
> > So to make him happy, I have developed
> > a
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:00:30PM -0400, krjw wrote:
> +-- On 29082002 12:16:11 +, darren chamberlain uttered:
> | * krjw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-29 11:57]:
> |
> | > 1) Firstly, does mutt support or will mutt ever support extended
> | > maildirs? I've never seen extended maildirs 'til
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:42:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When I installed the latest version of mutt, it changed or lost how to view
> html messages (lynx), and now returns this error:
>
>h: lynx-dump: command not found
>
> I've looked through the main mutt config and doc's, but
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:05:01PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Peter T. Abplanalp [02-07-24 19:55:29 +0200] wrote:
>
> > for example (untested):
>
> > set pgp_decrypt_command="gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --no-verbose --batch
> > --output - %f | se
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 05:08:09PM +0200, Heiko Heil wrote:
> Hello Mutt-users,
>
> a friend of mine uses Outlook :-( in order to write me encrypted
> GnuPG E-Mails...
a common problem. i have it as well and have, as yet, been unable to
solve it. :-)
> Everytime (after pressing ESC-P) i get th
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:25:53AM -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> Check the upgrade notes to GnuPG 1.0.7. I believe you need:
>
> keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve
minor clarification: you need to put the above in your gnupg options
file not in any of the muttrc pgp stuff.
--
Peter
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 09:18:54PM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Don't know where to go to first with this problem, so y'all please be my
> victim ;)
>
> I run mutt in a gnome-terminal. I use LC_CTYPE=en_US, so defined in
> .bashrc. So far so good.
>
> I also have a shortcut aka launc
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 09:18:54PM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
> Hi,
hello.
> I don't know if the --command option for gnome-terminal causes a
> different environment to be set. And if so if it's a feature or a
> bug. After searching faqs, checking manuals and browsing bugzillas,
> I give up.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:59:41PM -0400, Phil Gregory wrote:
> People have sent me some PGP signed emails in PGP/MIME format (with
> signature as a separate attachment). I would like to turn these into
> standalone files with just the contents and the signatures. Does
> anyone here know how I'd
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 08:42:15PM +0200, Raoul B?nisch wrote:
> Hello!
hi.
> "How can I send really broken encrypted email with mutt?"
interestingly enough, it is possible to break mutt in such a way as to
do this. from memory, you can use the 1.5 dev version of mutt which
does this automagic
hi all, is it possible for mutt to scan the headers of a message one
is replying to and set certain parameters based on regexs? basically
what i want is for mutt to set p_c_t if it sees a x-mailer that looks
like outlook. is this possible?
thanks,
--
Peter Abplanalp
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i was wondering if someone could point me at a source for dale
woolridge's pct patch for outlook compatibility for mutt 1.5. i
looked on his web site but it says contact him for the patches
but i couldn't find any contact info. probably understandable.
1.4 would work as well, if anyone knows a
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:52:34AM -0400, Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> I'd like to transition to a setup where most incoming mail gets procmailed
> into three folders: archive-, archive, and either INBOX or whatever
> other mailbox the procmail rules determine.
>
> That part i can take care of myself.
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 t
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 t
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 05:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
>
> I don't want to start a religious war, but is there consensus opinion
> as to whether mbox or Maildir is better? I know mutt supports both
> automatically, so it's probably a bit of a mute question, but mutt
> also gives you the o
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:58:18AM -0400, Kevin wrote:
> So here's my question (at long last!): Should I uninstall the Mutt
> 1.2.5 RPM, and then just do a default install of Mutt 1.4? I've
> already been using Mutt and have mail folders, etc that I don't
> want to lose.
it may be too late bu
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 03:45:20PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> I don't believe so; I just did a quick grep thru the manual and didn't
> see anything on it, but that's where you'd find out about it. The
> closest you can probably come is changing to there before starting mutt
> if you don't want to
i have mutt set up with gpg. when verifying a message, gpg gives the
following output:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Wed Jun 5 13:45:19 2002) --]
gpg: Signature made Wed Jun 5 13:24:25 2002 MDT using DSA key ID
D654075A
gpg: Good signature from "Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg:
you may also want to have both lines in your muttrc. off the top of my
head, i can't remember what each does but i find that i like to have
both set.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:37:48PM -0400, Mike Arrison wrote:
> Mutters,
> I recently changed a line in my muttrc from 'lists
> [EMAIL PROT
this may be a little off topic but you are all such a friendly bunch
and i used mutt to send the email, i thought i'd give it a try...
i have tried to subscribe to a couple mailing lists by sending a
subscribe message (using mutt!) to the list subscribe address but i
never get a response of any k
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:12:46PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
>
> Here you go:
>
> while ()
> {
> if (m//)
> {
> print "It matches!\n";
> }
> else
> {
> print "It doesn't match!\n";
> }
> }
i would suggest you pass in both the regex and the email. that way
you won't ha
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:46:15PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Let me see if I get this straight:
ok.
> This hypothetical person is capable of installing a PGP plugin for
> Outlook, but isn't capable of using it to decrypt an attached file?
first a little clarification, i am talking about th
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 05:05:41PM +, Simon White wrote:
> If it dies, it's biology. If it blows up, it's chemistry, and if it
> doesn't work, it's physics.
...and if it doesn't work, it's...anyone...anyone...anyone...OUTLOOK!
--
Peter Abplanalp
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP: pgp.mi
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:39:17PM +, Simon White wrote:
> Isn't that kinda like saying you have a door with 3 locks, but there are
> people who can't be bothered to use 3 keys, so you leave one open anyway
> so that those people can come into your secure environment with less than
> the requ
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to
> send an Outlook user a signed email and a patch, and he has to open both
> the email and the patch seperately, well, sometimes Microsoft's
> stupidity is
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:12:05AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Ah; didn't realize that was the problem you were describing. Yes,
> that's a limitation of the patch.
>
> That's what happens when you try to do something that isn't
> standardized; different people do it differently.
curses! am
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:10:04AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> He means that he would like for you to send a message in $p_c_t format to
> the list for our review. He might even mean that you should send another
> with an attachment (hey, why not `mutt -v` and make it useful? :-)
> and attempt to t
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:37:33AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed.
> Could you answer "yes" on a response to the list, so we can see what
> you're sending out?
not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
> here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read
> you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments,
> but I think t
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:22:19AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it?
>
it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the
p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want
to do pgp/mime
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:54:26PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700:
> > that this would be considered "broken" by today's "standards." i
> > guess if i want mutt to ha
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:26:49PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil.
>
i kind of figured; however, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data
handles it by inline signing the message and then signing the
attachment separately. it handles encryption
...David T-G made some exceleent suggestions...
ok, i got mutt 1.3.28, put dale's patch over it, compiled and
installed it. now my outlook can read the stuff. thanks!
however, if i am working without any attachments everything works fine
but as soon as i add an attachemnt, i no longer get the
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
> >
> > given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can
> > do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is
> > that neither of these for
ok, i've spent a number of hours over the last two days going over the
list archives for mutt and gnupg reading up on the conventions for
signing messages. it is now my understanding that there are 3 ways to
sign a message: pgp/mime, ascii armor, and application/pgp. i'm not
certain on the termi
i think i know the answer to this but i wanted to make sure...
if i have a send-hook:
send-hook somelist set pgp_autosign=no
it changes the value of pgp_autosign from there on out, yes? it is not
a temporary item just for this send afterwhich the global value of
pgp_autosign returns. that is
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 05:30:35PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> and next thing you know it'll be
> "handbuch handbuch" instead of "man man".
> no thanks.
shouldn't that be "hand hand"? (man is a shortcut for manual)
...i'm not really that funny but i try...
> (you English-only types are not su
: -/u
sub 1024g/CB44AB9B created: 2002-01-09 expires: never
(1). Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Command> check
uid Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sig! 7D224574 2002-01-09 [self-signature]
sig! 09468BD5 2002-02-06 Peter T. Laird <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:42:19PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> If you're using GnuPG, see the "lsign" option.
ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the
keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your
key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100, Dave Smith wrote:
> You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the
> pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing
> messages that have been used in the past, and many discussions have taken
> place here, and p
hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my
emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept
emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread
msft viruses. now it is my understanding that when you sign an email you
are actuall
http://www.mutt.org has a few links to pgp/gpg stuff. take alook.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 12:48:23PM -0500, keeper1 wrote:
> Greetings! As a newbie to mutt, I was wondering if somebody could direct
> me to a site that has a howto for mutt and gnupg to get me started.
> Thanks for anything.
>
>
55 matches
Mail list logo
