Hi all. I need some help.
Our wonderful corporate IT department has added a virus scanner to
the main MTA. "Good for them", you might say. However, this
particular scanner communicates its result by adding an extra text/plain
attachment to the top of the mail. AIUI, this violates the PGP/MIME
Dave --
...and then Dave Smith said...
%
% Hi all. I need some help.
Hello!
%
% Our wonderful corporate IT department has added a virus scanner to
% the main MTA. "Good for them", you might say. However, this
I might. Then, again, ...
% particular scanner communicates its result by ad
begin Dave Smith quotation:
>
> Can anyone think of a solution other than fetch/procmail (I'd like to keep
> my mail on the imap server if possible), or chainging the MTA setup?
Other than those? Sure, write new code and patch Mutt.
Other than that, you're either going to have to fix the brok
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 07:25:28AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...and then Dave Smith said...
> %
> % Hi all. I need some help.
>
> Hello!
Hello... :-)
> % particular scanner communicates its result by adding an extra text/plain
> % attachment to the top of the mail. AIUI, this violate
Hi,
* Dave Smith [04/23/02 10:19:26 CEST] wrote:
> Our wonderful corporate IT department has added a virus scanner to
> the main MTA. "Good for them", you might say. However, this
> particular scanner communicates its result by adding an extra text/plain
> attachment to the top of the mail. AI
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:46:08PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * Dave Smith [04/23/02 10:19:26 CEST] wrote:
> > Our wonderful corporate IT department has added a virus scanner to
> > the main MTA. "Good for them", you might say. However, this
> > particular scanner communicates its result
Hello Sven,
On Sunday, April 21, 2002 at 5:37:05 AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> telnet.exe sucks. use putty.exe. nuff said.
Thanks for the advice, Sven! It solved a half of my problem: I now
get nice charset and nice thread tree. You're right, Putty seems to be
5 steps ahead compared to Cy
Hello David,
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 3:35:19 PM -0500, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote:
> and then Rocco Rutte said...
> and here's clue number two.
Note here the 4 dots, when you sent only 3...
> So *now* what do you get?
Just to confuse things up, I could not ver
Hello Rocco,
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
> the signature could not be verified.
-1) set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from" (or your real
localized GnuPG output string)
-2) If
Alain --
...and then Alain Bench said...
%
% Hello Sven,
%
% On Sunday, April 21, 2002 at 5:37:05 AM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
%
% > telnet.exe sucks. use putty.exe. nuff said.
%
% Thanks for the advice, Sven! It solved a half of my problem: I now
That's good to hear!
% get nice chars
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, David T-G wrote:
> I wanted to ask about this before but forgot... Are you sure it's
> cygwin's and not Win's? Where is telnet if you do a "which"?
cygwin dll implements a terminal emulator inside M$'s console window.
(running bash in the window makes the terminal emulator
Hi,
I would like to have mutt automatically mark certain messages as deleted in my
spam folder, based on the output of SpamAssassin, but I am having trouble with
the quoting:
folder-hook spam push 'D"~b \'^SPAM: Hit\! \(1 point\) BODY: Image tag with an ID
code to identify you\'\n"'
As you
Rob --
...and then Rob Reid said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% I would like to have mutt automatically mark certain messages as deleted in my
...
% So how can I do three levels of quoting? Is it possible, and is there a way I
% can avoid it?
Rather than just escaping your single quotes because you
* On 2002.04.23, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Dave Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Any chance making it adding the information as an additional X- header?
>
> Well, I've asked. Well see what happens. For the moment, it appears
> to have stopped doing it - whether that's due to comp
Hi,
At 1:24 PM EDT on April 23 David T-G sent off:
> > I would like to have mutt automatically mark certain messages as deleted in
> > my
> ...
> > So how can I do three levels of quoting? Is it possible, and is there a
> > way I can avoid it?
>
> Rather than just escaping your single quotes b
Rob --
...and then Rob Reid said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% At 1:24 PM EDT on April 23 David T-G sent off:
...
% > > So how can I do three levels of quoting? Is it possible, and is there a
% > > way I can avoid it?
% >
% > Rather than just escaping your single quotes because you're using singl
Hi,
At 2:20 PM EDT on April 23 David T-G sent off:
> ...and then Rob Reid said...
> > At 1:24 PM EDT on April 23 David T-G sent off:
> > > Rather than just escaping your single quotes because you're using single
> > > quotes already, you have to escape them "deeply" enough. Starting from
> ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Rob Reid on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:12:12PM -0400:
> Hopefully some other SpamAssassin users will find this helpful.
I do, thanks for the work. Maybe I'll add it on my next revision of my
Mutt/SA tricks page.
- --
[!] Justin R. Miller <[EMA
I don't find a specification for Mutt's threading algorithm in
the docs I have, manual and faq. Maybe it's a moving target,
but I bet it's pretty stable at this point. As I understand it,
Mutt uses In-Reply-To as its highest precedence, which makes sense,
but I'm left with the following:
What's
JimO wrote:
> I don't find a specification for Mutt's threading algorithm in the
> docs I have, manual and faq. Maybe it's a moving target, but I bet
> it's pretty stable at this point. As I understand it, Mutt uses
> In-Reply-To as its highest precedence, which makes sense, but I'm left
> with
Hi,
* JimO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-23 21:29]:
>I often need to hack these headers to organize threads where
>correspondents are careless about replying, but their content
>is important enough to keep their mail; I'd like to know what
>spec I should be working to as I hack. Obviously, I can ge
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/23/02 16:55:18 CEST] wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
> > the signature could not be verified.
> -1) set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from" (or your
I just spent an hour or so getting GPG set up with Mutt am very
pleased at the results so far. I've had one problem - I get old-style
("traditional") PGP-signed messages far more frequently than properly
encapsulated ones. How do I set up mutt to automatically verify them like it
does the
Peter Harkins wrote:
> I just spent an hour or so getting GPG set up with Mutt am very
> pleased at the results so far. I've had one problem - I get old-style
> ("traditional") PGP-signed messages far more frequently than properly
> encapsulated ones. How do I set up mutt to automatically verify
On 020423, at 14:12:12, Rob Reid wrote
> ... Of course, testing is a pain since it means restarting mutt
> to undo the bad folder-hooks.
The 'unhook' command will undo the bad folder-hooks.
I include:
reset all
unhook *
at the beginning of my muttrc, just so I can undo any experimenta
Hi,
Can mutt copy the contents of one header to another one? I have many
different e-mail addresses on my machine, all of which get read at a
single account. Some of those addresses are for mailing lists, for example,
at this mailing list I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I reply to the list
I have to
Hello,
I wrote a muttrc-mode for emacs a while ago and it seems that someone
use it. I've updated it for the current version. It is available again:
http://www.soleil.org/laurent.pelecq/
This is a permanent URL. Follow the links. The site will move soon.
PS: I don't read the list anymore. P
27 matches
Mail list logo
