Jason Helfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I notice then when pgp-signing something a mail message, I need to enter
> my password, respectively. However, if I send another message,
> pgp-signing, again. There is no need to enter my password. Is this being
> passed to a temp file?
It's stored in memory
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 10:52]:
> However, a copy of the passphrase may still be left in your swap
> partition. (I think that only a process running as root can prevent
> memory from being written to swap, and even then only on some systems.
> If this is incorrect, perha
On 2000-03-27 22:50:11 -0600, Jason Helfman wrote:
> I notice then when pgp-signing something a mail
> message, I need to enter my password, respectively.
> However, if I send another message, pgp-signing, again.
> There is no need to enter my password. Is this being
> passed to a temp file?
It'
On 2000-03-28 11:08:20 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
> I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> some.
*grrr*
We don
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Lars Hecking wrote:
> Just like gpg, mutt could make use of mlock() where available.
> It doesn't require root privileges on all systems.
This mlock() stuff in GPG is giving me the hives (on HP-UX 10.20)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.st
> > I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> > root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> > user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> > for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> > some.
>
> *grrr*
>
> We don't go to great lengths with mu
* Lars Hecking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 12:31]:
> Just like gpg, mutt could make use of mlock() where available.
> It doesn't require root privileges on all systems.
And on those systems where it does need root, I say the best thing is to give
the choice to the user.
Terje
--
Tuj uh yaau f
On 2000-03-28 09:28:48 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
>> [-- application/pgp is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]
> What you are trying to view is a PGP/Mime message.
no. It's old-style PGP with little MIME sugar.
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 13:54]:
> On 2000-03-28 09:28:48 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> >> [-- application/pgp is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]
>
> > What you are trying to view is a PGP/Mime message.
>
> no. It's old-style PGP with little MIME sugar.
Oh, my
Hi!
I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since this list is for members only,
there are ever so often mailings that were approved by the moderators;
they're having this header:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus, "L" doesn't work, since I have
subscribe bind-users
in my ~/.muttrc
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> > root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> > user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> > for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> > some.
>
> *grrr*
>
>
On 2000-03-28 12:56:50 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
> And on those systems where it does need root, I say the
> best thing is to give the choice to the user.
While this may sound nice in theory, I really don't want
to maintain a program of the size of mutt running setuid
root. You are free to fork
On 2000-03-28 13:37:37 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
communication somewhere.
Hi,
This have been on the list before recently but has i have had some
config problems with my mailserver (causing mail to be bounced) i may
have missed a few relevant postings.
When re-confuguring my machine this weekend i have upgraded mutt from
version 1.0i to 1.0.1i. I have noticed opening o
[OT apology, disclaimer, etc.: Muttzilla isn't really affiliated with
mutt, I just happen to use mutt. I'm not sure mutt-users is a good
place for this, especially since I always get dropped from all of the
mutt lists three days after I subscribe anymore. But anyway...]
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at
* Gero Treuner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> Gnupg uses a different packet format when the message is both signed and
> encryypted which PGP2 doesn't understand. Gnupg's design doesn't allow
> to put a signature before the data. I saw a note in the gnupgp mailing
> list that it is not plan
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> While this may sound nice in theory, I really don't want
> to maintain a program of the size of mutt running setuid
> root. You are free to fork off a version which does this.
>
> (I.e., we can stop this discussion.)
Sorry for violating th
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
>
> This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
> communication somewhere. Thus, the
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
>
> This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
> communication somew
On 2000-03-27 10:27:29 -0100, Rejo Zenger wrote:
> When re-confuguring my machine this weekend i have
> upgraded mutt from version 1.0i to 1.0.1i. I have
> noticed opening of mailboxes of 5 Mb in size have
> slowed down noticeably. If i'm not able to solve this,
> i will move back to the older ve
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 01:30:59PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> Sam --
>
> Have you already gotten it? If not, I'll send it to you -- or whoever
> beats me to it will either send the patch to the list as well (it's not
> terribly large, but it's about 45k uncompressed or 11k compressed) or at
> lea
Ralf --
...and then Ralf Hildebrandt said...
% Hi!
%
...
% To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
%
% but I'd rather want to avoid that, since I'm correctly subscribed, so I
% don't see the need to post there. Can I use some nifty trick (a send-hook
% maybe) to change
% [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 10:56:50AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> If you really don't care about it, just use formail or good old sed (or
> the perl -e equivalent :-) to change it when it arrives.
formail's fine -- give me a hint
--
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hilde
Ralf --
...and then Ralf Hildebrandt said...
% On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 10:56:50AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
%
% > If you really don't care about it, just use formail or good old sed (or
% > the perl -e equivalent :-) to change it when it arrives.
%
% formail's fine -- give me a hint
Oh, gawd --
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 28 Mar 2000:
> formail's fine -- give me a hint
I don't have the original email anymore, but as far as I remember, you
wanted list-reply to work on emails where the To: header was the
moderator address, not the list address.
To fix this, use a p
This is an odd problem that may or may not be Mutt related. I'd be glad
to continue the discussion by private basis if appropriate.
When I attach a gif file to a short message, the 'send' fails. I've
gotten failures with gifs of 26 kb and 7kb, yet a gif of 1.9 kb is sent
OK. More puzzling still,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:04:09PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> To fix this, use a procmail recipe to detect these kind of emails,
> then use formail to rewrite the To: header in the procmail rule.
> Something like: formail -i To: list@address
Yup. Up and running already.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 02:28:57PM -0800, Michael Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > How might the To: be changed in a reply to a particular address,
> > > other than manually? I'm aware of the send-hook/my_hdr limitation
> > > specified in 3.17 :/
> >
> > This can't be done. There is no
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mon Mar 27 13:58 -0500:
> % Why does resend-message (ESC-e) not respect $copy? Presumably if
> % $copy is set, one wants a copy saved, of all messages sent.
>
> While I accept your argument, I think that the general premise is that
> you already have a copy of th
John:
I complained about this before, which resulted in posing a question to
mutt-users. In the index menu, Mutt I use a reverse video cursor.
However, the reverse video is only working up to the last non-space
character rather than the end of the screen.
For example, let the X's below the line
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:19:56AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> I dunno, I thought "in the mailbox index" was clear enough...
> (As opposed to "message index".)
Yes :)
> Even if I admit it could be interpreted either way.
Seems to be so...
> > I have now 24 mailboxes and If there are ne
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:42:42PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> % So with "quit" I actually meant changing to the "mailbox view" (with "c" and
> % by def., or -y on startup), where all mailboxes, given mutt with
> % "mailboxes (...)" in the muttrc, are listed.
>
> Ah; OK. That's an easy one; afte
supio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 28 Mar 2000:
> Nope, because if you view a mailbox the access time is changed, hence
> mutt no longer shows the "N" flag.
Ok then. How about changing your folder format to something where this
will not matter? If I sync-exit a Maildir format folder, I get
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:21:46 -0800, Clint Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>For example, let the X's below the line show where the reverse video
>pattern is:
>
>q:Quit d:Del u:Undel s:Save m:Mail r:Reply g:Group ?:Help
> 1 + Jason Surprise 03/28 16 bridge probs
>XX
hello,
I want to create "mailling lists" using mutt, that's to say, sending news to
some users, but the users need not reply my mails. As i want to implement the
list using scripts, I can not invoke mutt interactively, all i can do is to
use commandline options.
There are two questions that pu
hello,
I want to create "mailling lists" using mutt, that's to say, sending news to
some users, but the users need not reply my mails. As i want to implement the
list using scripts, I can not invoke mutt interactively, all i can do is to
use commandline options.
There are two questions that pu
Is there any way to tell Mutt to append my .signature to the message
at the point when I *send* it instead of when I start composing it?
I need this functionality in order to include time-sensitive
information in the signature that is based on the time the message is
sent.
_
Or you could create a macro in your editor that would call whatever
program generates the time-stamped signature and then save-and-exit
the editor.
Aleksey
Hello,
lewst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 28 Mar 2000:
> Is there any way to tell Mutt to append my .signature to the message
> at the point when I *send* it instead of when I start composing it?
Not that I know of, not in Mutt directly.
You could set your $editor make a script that first
39 matches
Mail list logo
