Attached is a patch which introduces two new variables, pgp_autoselectkey and
pgp_confirmhook, with defaults of 0/no and 1/yes respectively. The motivation
here is that when I use pgp-hook I really don't want to be asked if that's the
key I intended to use. Arguably, the confirmation is useful i
On Wednesday I sent out a note about a patch I had developed for mutt which
allows for circumventing the pgp-hook confirm prompt as well as automatically
selecting keys (when only one matching key is available). I have made a update
to the patch, correcting a possible error in scanning trust valu
David noted that my recent pgp-hook extension patch conflicts with
Bardur Arantsson's pgp-hook-extension patch. Borrowing Bardur's
idea and following David's suggestion, I have implemented the same
idea following the existing hook model more closely. You can find
the new patch at http://www.wool
On 6-Jan-2002 06:12 David T-G wrote:
|
| So does your patch include Bardur's functionality and then go farther, or
| do the two complement each other?
My patch should work as a replacement as it includes all the
functionality of Bardur's patch, albeit with slightly different
syntax.
On 7-Jan-2002 19:53 Derek D. Martin wrote:
|
| Mutt sucks much less (for me) today! =8^) I'd still really really
| like to see the pgp key selection stuff cleaned up, and I'd also
Have a look at http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/ for a patch which will
probably address the issues you've r
On 8-Jan-2002 10:55 Justin R. Miller wrote:
|
| I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a final confirmation of
| whose key I'm encrypting with before I send a message. For my close
| friends, I have a send-hook set up (to encrypt) and that searches for
| their key(s), but never prompts me
Someone found a bug with my patch (http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/) which
caused silent failure when attempting to send an encrypted message to a
recipient without a matching pgp-hook. The obvious symptom is that the
send-message command ('y' by default) in the compose menu would appear
to be igno
I've created a patch which allows the use of printf-style sequences
in the mailbox parameter of the mbox-hook command. My motivation for
this patch was to store/archive my mailing list messages to folders
based on date. I already had an fcc-save-hook like this:
fcc-save-hook '~C mutt-users.
On 13-Jan-2002 18:49 David T-G wrote:
|
| I take it you want to be sure that the dates are accurate and not from
| startup, right? This is a common problem for headers and such (good old
| uptime) and the answer is usually to put the parsed half in single quotes
| to prevent mutt from executing
On 14-Jan-2002 08:54 Michael Elkins wrote:
| mbox-hook was never intended to work on the per-message level, so just
| adding the percent sequences won't help you get the resolution you want.
| There is currently no way to bulk move messages to different mailboxes.
| even when doing a tag-save.
On 12-Jan-2002 19:08 Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
|
| One thing though: Somewhere the following header is created:
|
| Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.pgp"
|
| This causes Outlook to show an attachment where there obviously is
| none. Could this be safely ommited?
Viktor, I wa
On 22-Jan-2002 11:05 David Shaw wrote:
|
|Create an application/pgp message? ([yes]/no):
|
| Since it's not an application/pgp message at this point, the prompt
| should probably be something else.
Thanks for the input David. In my haste, I forgot to update the messages
to reflect
On 28-Jan-2002 23:39 Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
|
| However, this is on a fresh mutt tarball (1.3.26i), and looking on the
| patch, I don't think it'll apply if you have the outlook_compat patch
| applied.
|
| This patch does exactly what I want with $p_c_t, it's perfekt.
In fact, the patch is
On 29-Jan-2002 16:39 Nick Wilson wrote:
| 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej
| 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej
| 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej
This is a known problem (my fault). I import mutt source
On 29-Jan-2002 09:01 David Ellement wrote:
| >
| > On Jan 29, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
| > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 2.
| > > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/it.po.rej
| > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
| > > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/nl.po.rej
| >
On 29-Jan-2002 11:53 Jeremy Blosser wrote:
| On Jan 29, Dale Woolridge [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
| > http://www.woolridge.org/mutt/patches/patch-1.3.26.dw.pgp-traditional.2
| >
| > It will apply cleanly to 1.3.26, but I don't know about 1.5.0. If the
| > patch a
On 30-Jan-2002 23:06 Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
|
| Note however, that the usual caveats of clear-signing still apply, if
| there is a broken MTA setup somewhere along the way, you might get a
| broken signature. Not if Outlook would notice of course. :)
I just wanted to add that if you are u
On 12-Feb-2002 17:31 Steffen Evers wrote:
|
| I have reported about the following problem on Feb 05th, but no one
| had a solution. For me, it looks like that this is not my bad
| configuration, but an unintended behavior of mutt (=> BUG). Am I
| correct or not?
While what you're trying to d
On 13-Mar-2002 09:47 David T-G wrote:
| My list of patch maintainers for my cocktail is currently
[snip]
| Dale Woolridge
|
| so all of you folks should get to work to make sure that your patches
| work under 1.3.28 :-)
Well, I haven't touched my patches since 1.3.26 and expected
19 matches
Mail list logo
