Re: mutt feeds more to gnupg than it needs, causes invisible/lost

also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy [2009.11.28.2236 +0100]: > * Todd Zullinger [2009-11-27 21:07 -0500]: > > If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text > > lost? It is for me and I would call it a bug. It might also be > > some subtle difference between our configurations, gp

Re: mutt feeds more to gnupg than it needs, causes invisible/lost

* martin f krafft 29.11.2009 > also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy > [2009.11.28.2236 +0100]: > > * Todd Zullinger [2009-11-27 21:07 -0500]: > > > If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text > > > lost? It is for me and I would call it a bug. It might also be > > > some subtle

Re: mutt feeds more to gnupg than it needs, causes invisible/lost

* Michael Wagner [2009-11-29 07:59 -0500]: > * martin f krafft 29.11.2009 > > This *could* be due to gnupg. Do you see the unsigned portions of > > the text if you run > > > > gpg < ~/test I do *not* see the text preceding the digitally signed portion of the message when I run `gpg < ~/test`.

Using imap_idle with dovecot

The documentation for $imap_idle states: "Some servers (dovecot was the inspiration for this option) react badly to mutt's implementation." Is that still the case with dovecot? If it is, does anybody know if this applies to all Dovecot versions? Thanks, p...@rick -- Postfix - Einrichtung,

Re: Using imap_idle with dovecot

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 06:24:30PM +0100, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > The documentation for $imap_idle states: > > "Some servers (dovecot was the inspiration for this option) react badly to > mutt's implementation." > > Is that still the case with dovecot? If it is, does anybody know if this

Re: mutt feeds more to gnupg than it needs, causes invisible/lost

also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy [2009.11.29.1631 +0100]: > * Michael Wagner [2009-11-29 07:59 -0500]: > > * martin f krafft 29.11.2009 > > > This *could* be due to gnupg. Do you see the unsigned portions of > > > the text if you run > > > > > > gpg < ~/test > > I do *not* see the text prece

Re: mutt feeds more to gnupg than it needs, causes invisible/lost

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:06:31PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote: > If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text lost? No, actually... > It is for me and I would call it a bug. I can see why you'd say that, but I don't agree (regardless of the fact it's not happening for me).