On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 06:36:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm using Mutt 1.0i and gpg 1.0.0 and I'm signing everything I send,
> this was a simple text mail with no attachments.
I can confirm that a 'normal' unsigned mail didn't crash Outlook and
another signed one crashed his sys-adm
Thomas, et al --
...and then Thomas Roessler said...
% On 1999-12-23 19:44:31 -0500, David T-G wrote:
%
% > What priority or importance headers does mutt recognize?
%
% None.
Hmmph...
%
% However, with unstable, you could use some scoring rules to
% automatically flag certain messages as im
Bruno --
...and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
% On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 06:36:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% > I'm using Mutt 1.0i and gpg 1.0.0 and I'm signing everything I send,
% > this was a simple text mail with no attachments.
I can't sign mail sent to LookOut! lusers because the
Can someone confirm for me that PGP v6 works with Mutt 1.0i? PGP is working fine for
me, but when I am in Mutt, and I try to "sign as", I get a message stating, "Cannot
open your secret Key ring!"
Maybe some environment variable for Mutt is not set?
--
---
On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 07:58:17AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> I can't sign mail sent to LookOut! lusers because they then can't quote
> properly (it appears that OE won't quote attachments).
Ah, that explains why they always quote after the sig. I wondered why
people did that.
> Have you tried wi
On 1999-12-27 07:55:12 -0500, David T-G wrote:
> Hokay. Since I know nothing about scoring and haven't looked at
> the unstable branch, do you think that I could score messages
> based on a header (Priority: or Importance:) and then make that
> entry in the index be reverse color (since I just u
David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 27 Dec 1999:
> ...and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
> % Can anyone suggest a filter to not sign messages in reply-to messages
> % with this in the header:
> %
> % > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>
> Now that's a good one
At 23:24 +0200 27 Dec 1999, Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if some sort of reply-hook would be needed in Mutt? Ie.
The idea has been brought up before.
> send-hooks would remain as they are, but when replying, the
> message-being-replied to is checked against reply-hooks f
On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 27 Dec 1999:
> > ...and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
> > % Can anyone suggest a filter to not sign messages in reply-to messages
> > % with this in the header:
> > %
> > % > X-Mailer:
On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 06:26:41PM -0800, Duncan Watson wrote:
>
> The problems are many but at least from session to session you should
> be protecting outlook users. The biggest problem is during a session
> when you receive new mail from an outlook user not in your oudb. They
> might
10 matches
Mail list logo