Dave Dodge wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 10:49:53AM -0300, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> > Hi, this isn't a strictly mutt related question as it can be reproduced
> > on every Linux email client sending attachments to new versions Outlook
> > (from 2007+).
> &g
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 10:49:53AM -0300, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> Hi, this isn't a strictly mutt related question as it can be reproduced
> on every Linux email client sending attachments to new versions Outlook
> (from 2007+).
>
> When we send emails with attachmets to O
Hi, this isn't a strictly mutt related question as it can be reproduced
on every Linux email client sending attachments to new versions Outlook
(from 2007+).
When we send emails with attachmets to Outlook, the receiver sees the
attachment as "winmail.dat" instead of what we'
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> I my wet dreams i' encrypting every single message. But mutt is not very
> helpful in this. Yes - it can encrypt but i'd like mutt to decide
> automatically when it's capable of encrypting the mail (remember
> multiple To:, Cc:, Bcc). It would be okay to encrypt a mail if i
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 08:17:21AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Florian Lohoff:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > > I have a couple of comments about this:
> > >
> > > - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> > > ot
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:49:40PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Is it true that if you want to correspond with people on windoze who use
> outhouse then it becomes tricky?
It can be. Microsoft doesn't adhere to the appropriate RFC's regarding
email encryption... they use the old in-line stan
Incoming from Chris Bannister:
>
> Is it true that if you want to correspond with people on windoze who
> use outhouse then it becomes tricky?
I. Don't. Care. [about them].
However, it might present a good opportunity to mention Firefox (or
Opera) and Cygwin. Yes, I am (seriously!) biased.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:37:46AM -0600, Dale Raby wrote:
> I sign most of my messages, even though I only know a few people who
> actively use GnuPG/PGP. As I see it, this is one way of promoting
> encryption. I.e.: "What is that block of gibberish you have at the end
> of your emails?" "That,
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:35:07PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Robert Holtzman:
> >
> > Your dreaming. In my experience 99.9% of the replies are "why would I
> > want to?"
>
> That's when you get a chance to explain it. "Wouldn't it be neat if
> you could order weed from your dealer
Incoming from Will Fiveash:
>
> As a side note, I wonder if a pgp/gpg signature as proof of authorship
> has ever been tested in court? My guess is no.
The legal community considers fax to be cutting edge reliable tech.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Incoming from Robert Holtzman:
>
> Your dreaming. In my experience 99.9% of the replies are "why would I
> want to?"
That's when you get a chance to explain it. "Wouldn't it be neat if
you could order weed from your dealer via email?" :-O As opposed to
over the phone with AT&T forwarding all y
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:22:47PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:37:46AM -0600, Dale Raby wrote:
> > I sign most of my messages, even though I only know a few people who
> > actively use GnuPG/PGP. As I see it, this is one way of promoting
> > encryption. I.e.: "What
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:37:46AM -0600, Dale Raby wrote:
> I sign most of my messages, even though I only know a few people who
> actively use GnuPG/PGP. As I see it, this is one way of promoting
> encryption. I.e.: "What is that block of gibberish you have at the end
> of your emails?" "That,
Incoming from Dale Raby:
> encryption. I.e.: "What is that block of gibberish you have at the end
> of your emails?" "That, my friend is my public key. If you have the
> right software you can verify that I sent you that message, and we can
> even send encrypted emails that nobody else can read
* Dale Raby [03-06-13 10:39]:
[...]
> I see no problem in signing list posts. For those who want to verify
> them, its easy to set up, those who don't can ignore them just as
> easily. Its not like you are printing them out and reading them from
> paper, after all.
Which is the same argument h
I sign most of my messages, even though I only know a few people who
actively use GnuPG/PGP. As I see it, this is one way of promoting
encryption. I.e.: "What is that block of gibberish you have at the end
of your emails?" "That, my friend is my public key. If you have the
right software you ca
Incoming from Florian Lohoff:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > I have a couple of comments about this:
> >
> > - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> > others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the
> > blo
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> I have a couple of comments about this:
>
> - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the
> bloat of a signature. Beyond this I find
* Stefan Wimmer , 2013-03-01 13:31:26 Fri:
> * Will Fiveash [2013-03-01 00:14]:
> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:03:23PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> >>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:35:44PM -0500, David Haguenauer wrote:
> >>>I patched my copy of mutt so that it will let me delete attachments
> >>Thanks
On Thursday, 28 February, 2013 at 19:24:44 GMT, Will Fiveash wrote:
- Why sign most messages?
I'd rather everyone/everything use PGP. I sign personal messages, even though I
know the recipient doesn't use PGP, to at least spread awareness of what it is
and that on the off-chance that the reci
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 06:34:03PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Will Fiveash wrote:
> > The why is that you are adding needless bloat to most messages you send.
>
> One person's "needless bloat" is another's digital signature, I guess.
Yep, just like one salesperson's HTML format e-mail with
Will Fiveash wrote:
> The why is that you are adding needless bloat to most messages you send.
One person's "needless bloat" is another's digital signature, I guess.
> Take for example the message you sent that I'm responding to. Does
> anyone care that it actually came from you and wasn't tampe
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:09:28PM -0500, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> > others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the
> > bloat of a signature.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:55:39PM +0100, Stefan Wimmer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time to find
> > out that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted mails ... ;-)
* Will Fiveash [2013-03-01 00:14]:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:03:23PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:35:44PM -0500, David Haguenauer wrote:
* Stefan Wimmer , 2013-02-28 12:55:39 Thu:
I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time
to find out that you
Incoming from Will Fiveash:
>
> I wasn't referring to you specifically as I see you did publish your
> pubkey properly. Instead, I was referring to others (like s.keeling)
> that sign everything yet I can not retrieve their pubkey.
... which is very annoying to me too.
=
Incoming from Will Fiveash:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:55:39PM +0100, Stefan Wimmer wrote:
> >
> > I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time
> > to find out that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted
> > mails ... ;-)
> >
> > Now I want to automate the way I
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 05:03:23PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:35:44PM -0500, David Haguenauer wrote:
> > * Stefan Wimmer , 2013-02-28 12:55:39 Thu:
> > > I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time
> > > to find out that you can't delete attachmen
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:35:44PM -0500, David Haguenauer wrote:
> * Stefan Wimmer , 2013-02-28 12:55:39 Thu:
> > I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time
> > to find out that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted
> > mails ... ;-)
>
> I patched my copy of mut
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:43:36PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote:
> I wasn't referring to you specifically as I see you did publish your
> pubkey properly. Instead, I was referring to others (like s.keeling)
> that sign everything yet I can not retrieve their pubkey.
I'm actually working with him on
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:30:47PM +0100, Stefan Wimmer wrote:
> * Patrick Shanahan [2013-02-28 20:38]:
> >* Will Fiveash [02-28-13 14:25]:
> >[...]
> >>I have a couple of comments about this:
> >>
> >>- Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> >> others to verify that
* Stefan Wimmer , 2013-02-28 12:55:39 Thu:
> I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time
> to find out that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted
> mails ... ;-)
I patched my copy of mutt so that it will let me delete attachments
from encrypted messages (breaking
* Patrick Shanahan [2013-02-28 20:38]:
* Will Fiveash [02-28-13 14:25]:
[...]
I have a couple of comments about this:
- Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the
bloat of a signature. Beyond this I
* Will Fiveash [02-28-13 14:25]:
[...]
> I have a couple of comments about this:
>
> - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for
> others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the
> bloat of a signature. Beyond this I find it ironic that people sign
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:55:39PM +0100, Stefan Wimmer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time to find
> out that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted mails ... ;-)
>
> Now I want to automate the way I use crypt_autosign that mutt check
Hi all,
I recently started to sign all my mails and it took me little time to find out
that you can't delete attachments in signed/encrypted mails ... ;-)
Now I want to automate the way I use crypt_autosign that mutt checks first if
there is an attachment and only signs the mail if that's not
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 08:53:24AM -0700, Paul Seniuk wrote:
> I am attempting to send an html page as an attachment
> with following Mutt command:
>
> mutt -n -F /dev/null [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> < /test/test.html
>
> The message is sent, however the page attachment is within
> the messaage body
I am attempting to send an html page as an attachment
with following Mutt command:
mutt -n -F /dev/null [EMAIL PROTECTED]
< /test/test.html
The message is sent, however the page attachment is within
the messaage body and only appearing as plain text. I
~~think~ this is because the message is
Mullen A.J. writes:
> To elaborate on my earlier question about including attachments,
> the following is what I'm sending out. This is the raw text of the
> mail. When Mutt receives this, it's able to parse it without a problem
> and treat the attachments and text appropriately. When other mai
To elaborate on my earlier question about including attachments,
the following is what I'm sending out. This is the raw text of the
mail. When Mutt receives this, it's able to parse it without a problem
and treat the attachments and text appropriately. When other mailers
(so far tried with emac
On Thu 08-Mar-2001 at 05:42:11PM +0100, Mullen A.J. wrote:
> Here's an example of the full header and boundaries I'm sending
> which is not being properly decoded by other mailers (although it
> is by other mutt users).
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 8 15:20:13 2001
> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15
On Thu 08-Mar-2001 at 04:23:35PM +0100, Mullen A.J. wrote:
> I'm having problems sending attachments to non mutt users. It appears
> to be stemming from their not being able to recognize the boundaries
> between attachments (I've noticed that other mailers use a "boun
Hi-
I'm having problems sending attachments to non mutt users. It appears
to be stemming from their not being able to recognize the boundaries
between attachments (I've noticed that other mailers use a "boundary"
variable, and my mutt is adding an asterisk to this.)
I
Hi-
I'm having problems sending attachments to non mutt users. It appears
to be stemming from their not being able to recognize the boundaries
between attachments (I've noticed that other mailers use a "boundary"
variable, and my mutt is adding an asterisk to this.)
I
Hello!
I have to write two shell scripts. One to check a file, and send it via
Email to the other script. The second script has to get the attached
file back from the Email and install it.
The file which is attached is a PGP signed Tarball.
It is send via
mutt -a files.tar.pgp -s "Subject" [E
Op wo. 20 okt 1999 14:11:53 zei Marcin J. Kraszewski:
> Thank you very much for your quick replies. I do not have mutt on my
> HP-UX machines, that is why I decided to bother this list. I looked
> at mail, mailx, elm, and pine, and did not see a way of doing what I
> wanted to do from a shell scr
Ralf, Jeremy, Goran, Mikko, David, Ronny,
Thank you very much for your quick replies. I do not have mutt on my HP-UX
machines, that is why I decided to bother this list. I looked at mail, mailx,
elm, and pine, and did not see a way of doing what I wanted to do from a
shell script. I'm glad mutt g
Marcin J. Kraszewski [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I do not have mutt on my HP-UX machines, that is why I decided to bother
> this list.
No worries, but just FYI, there is a copy of the man page (and the manual)
at http://www.mutt.org/doc/
--
Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://j
Marcin J. Kraszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there a way in mutt to send an attachment from the command line,
> without invoking an editor?
echo "message text" | mutt -a attachment_file \
[ -a attachment_2 ] \
-s "Subje
Marcin J. Kraszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 20 Oct 1999:
> Is there a way in mutt to send an attachment from the command line,
> without invoking an editor? I would like to do this from a shell script
> on an HP-UX machine. TIA.
mutt -a file -s "Message subject" recipient < msg_text
W
Marcin J. Kraszewski [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Is there a way in mutt to send an attachment from the command line,
> without invoking an editor? I would like to do this from a shell script
> on an HP-UX machine. TIA.
$ man mutt
...
OPTIONS
-a file
Attach a file to y
Hi,
Is there a way in mutt to send an attachment from the command line,
without invoking an editor? I would like to do this from a shell script
on an HP-UX machine. TIA.
PS. Please, if you have a solution, copy me directly, since I am not
subscribed to this list at the moment.
Regards,
Marcin
52 matches
Mail list logo
