[TUHS] off-topic list
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Sun Jun 24 04:49:36 AEST 2018
On 06/23/2018 08:49 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Oh, I do not know: i have never used a graphical MUA, only pine, then
> mutt, and now, while anytime before now and then anyway, BSD Mail.
I agree that text mode MUAs from before the turn of the century do have
a LOT more functionality than most GUI MUAs that came after that point
Thankfully we are free to use what ever MUA we want to. :-)
> they i think misinterpreted RFC 2231 to only allow MIME paramaters to be
> split in ten sections.
I've frequently found things that MUAs (and other applications) don't do
properly. That's when it becomes a learning game to see what subset of
the defined standard was implemented incorrectly and deciding if I want
to work around it or not.
> Graphical user interfaces are a difficult abstraction, or tedious to use.
> I have to use a graphical browser, and it is always terrible to enable
> Cookies for a site.
Cookies are their own problem as of late. All the "We use
cookies...<bla>...<bla>...<bla>...." warnings that we now seem to have
to accept get really annoying. I want a cookie, or more likely a
header, that says "I accept (first party) cookies." as a signal to not
> For my thing i hope we will at some future day be so resilient that
> users can let go the nmh mailer without loosing any freedom.
Why do you have to let go of one tool? Why can't you use a suite of
tools that collectively do what you want?
> I mean, user interfaces are really a pain, and i think this will not
> go away until we come to that brain implant which i have no doubt will
> arrive some day, and then things may happen with a think. Things like
> emacs or Acme i can understand, and the latter is even Unix like in the
> way it works.
You can keep the brain implant. I have a desire to not have one.
> Interesting that most old a.k.a. established Unix people give up that
> Unix freedom of everything-is-a-file, that was there for email access via
> nupas -- the way i have seen it in Plan9 (i never ran a research Unix),
> at least -- in favour of a restrictive graphical user interface!
Why do you have to give up one tool to start using a different tool?
I personally use Thunderbird as my primary MUA but weekly use mutt
against the same mailbox w/ data going back 10+ years. I extensively
use Procmail to file messages into the proper folders. I recently wrote
a script that checks (copies of) messages that are being written to
folders to move a message with that Message-ID from the Inbox to the
Trash. (The point being to remove copies that I got via To: or CC: when
I get a copy from the mailing list.)
It seems to be like I'm doing things that are far beyond what
Thunderbird can do by leveraging other tools to do things for me. I
also have a handful devices checking the same mailbox.
> No, we use the same threading algorithm that Zawinski described (,
> "the threading algorithm that was used in Netscape Mail and News 2.0
> and 3.0"). I meant, in a threaded display, successive follow-up messages
> which belong to the same thread will not reiterate the Subject:, because
> it is the same one as before, and that is irritating.
>  http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html
I *LOVE* threaded views. I've been using threaded view for longer than
I can remember. I can't fathom not using threaded view.
I believe I mistook your statement to mean that you wanted to thread
based on Subject: header, not the In-Reply-To: or References: header.
>>> And you seem to be using DMARC, which irritates the list-reply mechanism
>>> of at least my MUA.
>> Yes I do use DMARC as well as DKIM and SPF (w/ -all). I don't see how
>> me using that causes problems with "list-reply".
>> My working understanding is that "list-reply" should reply to the list's
>> posting address in the List-Post: header.
>> List-Post: <mailto:tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org>
>> What am I missing or not understanding?
> That is not how it works for the MUAs i know. It is an interesting idea.
> And in fact it is used during the "mailing-list address-massage"
> if possible. But one must or should differentiate in between a
> subscribed list and a non-subscribed list, for example. This does
> not work without additional configuration (e.g., we have `mlist' and
> `mlsubscribe' commands to make known mailing-lists to the machine),
> though List-Post: we use for automatic configuration (as via `mlist').
> And all in all this is a complicated topic (there are Mail-Followup-To:
> and Reply-To:, for example), and before you say "But what i want is a
> list reply!", yes, of course you are right. But. For my thing i hope
> i have found a sensible way through this, and initially also one that
> does not deter users of console MUA number one (mutt).
How does my use of DMARC irritate the list-reply mechanism of your MUA?
DMARC is completely transparent to message contents. Sure, DKIM adds
headers with a signature. But I don't see anything about DKIM's use
that has any impact on how any MUA handles a message.
Or are you referring to the fact that some mailing lists modify the
From: header to be DMARC compliant?
Please elaborate on what you mean by "DMARC irritate the list-reply
mechanism of your MUA".
Grant. . . .
unix || die
More information about the TUHS