From joniplum at googlemail.com Fri Sep 18 06:43:48 2009 From: joniplum at googlemail.com (John Plum) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:43:48 +0100 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME Message-ID: Hi Folk! I wonder what is the expected, or correct display behaviour for a MIME multipart/mixed message. I composed an email (code below), which displays as I wished in Apple Mail - I.E. all three parts in the message displayed, to give a continuous message, whereas in Mulberry, each message was sent as an attachment (not inline), and only the introduction visible upon opening the message. I had to concateante the parts, a preamble, followed by output from a perl processed form, and finally, an ending with signature. use MIME::Lite; ### Create multipart message: MIME::Lite->send('sendmail', "/usr/bin/sendmail -t -i"); $own_msg = MIME::Lite->new( From => $b_email, TO => $our_sales_email, Subject => 'New Online Order', Type => 'multipart/mixed' ) or die "Error Creating Multipart Container: $!\n"; # $own_msg->attach( # Type => 'text/plain', # Data => $supplier_msg_ascii, # ) or die "Error adding plain text to body of email: $!\n"; # $own_msg->attach( # Type => 'text/html', # Data => $supplier_msg_html, # )or die "Error adding html text to body of email:$!\n"; # $own_msg->attach( Type => 'text/html', Path => '/home/public/inserts/signature_bol.html' )or die unless "couldn't open file: $!"; die "Error sending e-mail: $!" unless $own_msg->send; Thanks, John -- -- http://jakbop.nfshost.com From A.Clews at sussex.ac.uk Fri Sep 18 07:19:30 2009 From: A.Clews at sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:19:30 +0100 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Attachment problems Message-ID: This concerns Mulberry 3.1.6 or 4.0.8 on Windows XP machines. I fairly frequently get reports from people saying that they're unable to open an attachment. This most often seems to happen with Word files (.doc extensions) and especially with attachments where the file names contain dots (periods) before the extension, for example this one shown me yesterday: 4. FINAL handbook 08.09.09.doc In most cases I refer them to one of our FAQs - but it seems odd why this should be necessary, because they seem able to open the same attachments in other clients, and often in Mulberry on other computers, and other attachments (such as GIFs and JPGs) don't seem to be similarly affected. I have found that if I send an email (whether a new message or a forwarded one) containing an attachment named as above, and if the receiver does not have the .doc extension mapped in their preferences as described in the webpage above, the attachment 'loses' its original extension (as seen by the recipient) and becomes (as in this actual example), 4. FINAL handbook 08.09.09 and thus fails to open at the receiver's end due to the absence of an identifiable extension. This doesn't happen if the attachment file name does not contain periods except at the extension: in other words, myfile.doc is shown as is whether or not .doc is mapped. If the recipient maps the .doc extension and reopens their mailbox, the .doc extension reappears in the same attachment. I just wondered if other folk have had this trouble with attachments and whether they have managed to resolve it. I would especially like to know *exactly* what happens when an attachment is opened; i.e. what sequence of events takes place in Mulberry between the double-clicking of the attachment and the launching (or not) of the appropriate application, and why it works for some people and sometimes not for others. Similarly, I'd like to know the sequence of events when forwarding a message with an attachment, because I'm curious as to why the attachment sometimes gets renamed, as described above. Thanks Andy -- Andy Clews Email Services Support Manager, University of Sussex IT Services A.Clews at sussex.ac.uk Falmer, BRIGHTON BN1 9QJ, U.K. From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de Fri Sep 18 07:26:01 2009 From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:26:01 +0200 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: --On 18. September 2009 11:43:48 +0100 John Plum wrote: > I wonder what is the expected, or correct display behaviour for a MIME > multipart/mixed message. I composed an email (code below), which > displays as I wished in Apple Mail - I.E. all three parts in the message > displayed, to give a continuous message, whereas in Mulberry, each > message was sent as an attachment (not inline), and only the > introduction visible upon opening the message. FWIW, I consider Mulberry's behavior to be the more "correct" one, but I don't think you'll find any prescriptive document on that - I'd say it's up to the developer and a matter of personal preference. I could be wrong, of course. -- .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb?ude 52), Zimmer 18.:. .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:. .:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-478-5587.:. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5292 bytes Desc: not available URL: From klensin+mulberry at jck.com Fri Sep 18 14:53:45 2009 From: klensin+mulberry at jck.com (John C Klensin) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:53:45 -0400 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry and MIME (was: "Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed" and "Attachment problems") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68CE188F26EA35FB1666D8DD@PST.JCK.COM> --On Friday, September 18, 2009 11:43:48 +0100, John Plum wrote: > Hi Folk! > > I wonder what is the expected, or correct display behaviour > for a MIME multipart/mixed message. I composed an email (code > below), which displays as I wished in Apple Mail - I.E. all > three parts in the message displayed, to give a continuous > message, whereas in Mulberry, each message was sent as an > attachment (not inline), and only the introduction visible > upon opening the message. >... and then Sebastian Hagedorn wrote... > FWIW, I consider Mulberry's behavior to be the more "correct" > one, but I don't think you'll find any prescriptive document > on that - I'd say it's up to the developer and a matter of > personal preference. I could be wrong, of course. Yes. There is deliberately no spec as to how unadorned multipart/mixed is displayed, but the worst option is usually assumed (and was assumed when MIME was being designed) to consider all of the message body parts to be a single message stream. If a sender has strong preferences about the form of display, the mechanism for specifying that is in a separate, per-body-part header called "Content-Disposition" (RFC 2183). The introduction to RFC 2183 provides what is more or less the definitive word on the multipart display issue; I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this issue. It would be plausible, but certainly is not required, for an MUA to support a user-controlled default for what to do when an incoming message doesn't contain Content-Disposition headers (presumably globally with a per-message override) but, as far as I know, Mulberry has never had that capability. On Friday, 18 September 2009 12:19:30 +0100 Andy Clews wrote... > I fairly frequently get reports from people saying that > they're unable to open an attachment. This most often seems > to happen with Word files (.doc extensions) and especially > with attachments where the file names contain dots (periods) > before the extension, for example this one shown me yesterday: >... > but it seems odd why this should be necessary, because they > seem able to open the same attachments in other clients, and > often in Mulberry on other computers, and other attachments > (such as GIFs and JPGs) don't seem to be similarly affected. >... Many email clients determine how to open a body part ("attachment" or otherwise) by playing games with the "extensions" or even heuristics on the content of the body part itself. Mulberry tends to follow the requirement of the MIME standard and look only at the Content-type. Only if the content-type is missing, broken, or, in some cases, the "just store this" application/octet-stream, does it start looking at extensions. And, having adopted that model, it probably doesn't spend as much energy trying to guess at file types from hints (extensions included) than those MUAs that violate the standard by looking at the extensions and heuristics first. Some of us consider this a feature. > I have found that if I send an email (whether a new message or > a forwarded one) containing an attachment named as above, and > if the receiver does not have the .doc extension mapped in > their preferences as described in the webpage above, the > attachment 'loses' its original extension (as seen by the > recipient) and becomes (as in this actual example), > > 4. FINAL handbook 08.09.09 > > and thus fails to open at the receiver's end due to the > absence of an identifiable extension. The important question is whether Mulberry properly identifies the Content-type and, if not, what happens if you manually correct the Content-type before sending. If the receiver is ignoring the content-type and relying exclusively on the extension... well, I believe the technical term is "broken" -- the remote client/ receiver, not Mulberry. john From shiva at sewingwitch.com Fri Sep 18 17:29:40 2009 From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:40 -0700 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Attachment problems In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B7C6959E24B7CF4E1A77AED@[10.170.7.6]> --On Friday, September 18, 2009 1:19 PM +0100 Andy Clews wrote: > I would especially like to know *exactly* what happens when an attachment > is opened; i.e. what sequence of events takes place in Mulberry between > the double-clicking of the attachment and the launching (or not) of the > appropriate application, and why it works for some people and sometimes > not for others. Similarly, I'd like to know the sequence of events when > forwarding a message with an attachment, because I'm curious as to why > the attachment sometimes gets renamed, as described above. I don't have time to do this, but the source is available. Grab my branch from SVN (which has some Win32 fixes) and join the -devel list. I think I have info in the list archives and how to set up the build environment. Then it's just a matter of opening such a message while running in the debugger and stepping through all the machinery. From shiva at sewingwitch.com Fri Sep 18 17:32:47 2009 From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:32:47 -0700 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry and MIME (was: "Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed" and "Attachment problems") In-Reply-To: <68CE188F26EA35FB1666D8DD@PST.JCK.COM> References: <68CE188F26EA35FB1666D8DD@PST.JCK.COM> Message-ID: --On Friday, September 18, 2009 3:53 PM -0400 John C Klensin wrote: > Some of us consider this a feature. Indeed. One advantage of IMAP is seen when using it in mobile low-resource systems (like cell phones): You can grab just the primary part (normally the "body" of the message) without having to pay to download all the other parts. It's built into the IMAP protocol. This is something that POP3 lacks. With POP3, you can't even look at the headers without downloading a potentially multi-megabyte file. From shiva at sewingwitch.com Fri Sep 18 17:26:32 2009 From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:26:32 -0700 Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14DE050D69D694F8E79D1316@[10.170.7.6]> --On Friday, September 18, 2009 12:43 PM +0100 John Plum wrote: > I wonder what is the expected, or correct display behaviour for a MIME > multipart/mixed message. I composed an email (code below), which > displays as I wished in Apple Mail - I.E. all three parts in the message > displayed, to give a continuous message, whereas in Mulberry, each > message was sent as an attachment (not inline), and only the > introduction visible upon opening the message. There's currently no machinery in Mulberry to display more than one part at the same time. Only a single pane is available. I suppose you could use the limited HTML display mode and treat text parts in a mixed message as 
 
sections to inject into the HTML.

Patches welcome, of course. (Join the -devel list if interested.)



From joniplum at googlemail.com  Sat Sep 19 07:44:47 2009
From: joniplum at googlemail.com (John Plum)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:44:47 +0100
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME
References: 
	<14DE050D69D694F8E79D1316@[10.170.7.6]>
Message-ID: 

In article <14DE050D69D694F8E79D1316@[10.170.7.6]>,
 Kenneth Porter  wrote:

> There's currently no machinery in Mulberry to display more than one part at 
> the same time. Only a single pane is available. I suppose you could use the 
> limited HTML display mode and treat text parts in a mixed message as 
 
> sections to inject into the HTML.
> 
> Patches welcome, of course. (Join the -devel list if interested.)

Hi Kenneth.
Thank you, your suggestion is what I was attempting: seems I was 
attempting to do something lawful!

 The mixed message 'attachments' do not display as concatenations, but 
as seperate 'alternative' or attachment' - not inline.
John

-- 
--
http://jakbop.nfshost.com


From joniplum at googlemail.com  Sat Sep 19 08:01:03 2009
From: joniplum at googlemail.com (John Plum)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:01:03 +0100
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME
References: 
	
Message-ID: 

In article ,
 Sebastian Hagedorn  wrote:

> FWIW, I consider Mulberry's behavior to be the more "correct" one, but I 
> don't think you'll find any prescriptive document on that - I'd say it's up 
> to the developer and a matter of personal preference. I could be wrong, of 
> course.

With great respect ( I'm sure you are my informer and master in things 
email, from what i have read, and know), in this case of opinion, i  beg 
to differ, form a point of useability, according to the sender.

I need to concatenate a message, with form output and other insertions. 
I cannot prepare the message in advance, as it involves reading from 
file,  (which is an administrative preference - one central file, 
separate form code); this together with hidden strings passed from a 
form into the email dispatch script. 

I found that if I slurp, or read in  @lines,  the file and concatenate 
the message in a preceding subroutine, only a reference to a glob and 
the not the actual data in the file is processed by the MIME  modules 
(MIME:: CREATE, and MIME:Lite). I asked a perl forums, and spent ages 
trying: my conclusion is that these module don't handle the 
scalar/linear stuff as quite expected.  I'm sure it can be done somehow, 
but I have found no advice or way, yet. 
(believe me I spent ages, and I would appreciate a solution). I do not 
think many people are attempting it, with such modules.
(actually, The same variable will scalar reference to the slurped file 
will print - I have yet to try straight command, print MAIL (); with 
this concatenation...for some reason I turned to these MIME modules, 
beleiving them to be a better solution regarding formatting and mail. 
But I shall, and it may work OK).

So  meanwhile, the  only option is concatenate with a mixed message, 
and that seems to be an intuitively useful, and reasonable, technique: 
'mixed' should mean something different from 'alternative'
John

-- 
--
http://jakbop.nfshost.com


From joniplum at googlemail.com  Sat Sep 19 08:03:34 2009
From: joniplum at googlemail.com (John Plum)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:03:34 +0100
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry and MIME (was: "Expected Behaviour
	Multipart Mixed" and "Attachment problems")
References: 
	<68CE188F26EA35FB1666D8DD@PST.JCK.COM>
Message-ID: 

In article <68CE188F26EA35FB1666D8DD at PST.JCK.COM>,
 John C Klensin  wrote:

> Yes.  There is deliberately no spec as to how unadorned
> multipart/mixed is displayed, but the worst option is usually
> assumed (and was assumed when MIME was being designed) to
> consider all of the message body parts to be a single message
> stream.  If a sender has strong preferences about the form of
> display, the mechanism for specifying that is in a separate,
> per-body-part header called "Content-Disposition" (RFC 2183).
> The introduction to RFC 2183 provides what is more or less the
> definitive word on the multipart display issue; I recommend it
> to anyone who is interested in this issue.
> 
> It would be plausible, but certainly is not required, for an MUA
> to support a user-controlled default for what to do when an
> incoming message doesn't contain Content-Disposition headers
> (presumably globally with a per-message override) but, as far as
> I know, Mulberry has never had that capability.

That's most interesting, and points me in a useful direction.
Thanks,
John

-- 
--
http://jakbop.nfshost.com


From shiva at sewingwitch.com  Sat Sep 19 14:25:14 2009
From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:25:14 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Expected Behaviour Multipart Mixed MIME
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
	
	
Message-ID: <15F2B5F4BC16864CB7F5ACDD@[10.170.7.6]>

--On Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:01 PM +0100 John Plum 
 wrote:

> I found that if I slurp, or read in  @lines,  the file and concatenate
> the message in a preceding subroutine, only a reference to a glob and
> the not the actual data in the file is processed by the MIME  modules
> (MIME:: CREATE, and MIME:Lite). I asked a perl forums, and spent ages
> trying: my conclusion is that these module don't handle the
> scalar/linear stuff as quite expected.  I'm sure it can be done somehow,
> but I have found no advice or way, yet.

Perhaps you could post some example code. If you need formatted mail (I 
rarely do), then you need HTML, not a mix of HTML and plain text. So you 
should get the code working that mixes the plain text into the HTML.

From joel at columbia.edu  Mon Sep 21 16:53:17 2009
From: joel at columbia.edu (Joel Rosenblatt)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:53:17 -0400
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Suggestion for additional spell checking
Message-ID: <386B6EECB41A7E04694DB700@secdesk.columbia.edu>

Hi,

I have a suggestion - would it be possible to spell check the subject line also - It would be really nice if there was some way to make that happen.

Thanks,
Joel Rosenblatt

Joel Rosenblatt, Manager Network & Computer Security
Columbia Information Security Office (CISO)
Columbia University, 612 W 115th Street, NY, NY 10025 / 212 854 3033
http://www.columbia.edu/~joel


From shiva at sewingwitch.com  Tue Sep 22 01:25:21 2009
From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:25:21 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Suggestion for additional spell checking
In-Reply-To: <386B6EECB41A7E04694DB700@secdesk.columbia.edu>
References: <386B6EECB41A7E04694DB700@secdesk.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <122D363BB4BE58A037558AD2@[10.0.0.199]>

--On Monday, September 21, 2009 5:53 PM -0400 Joel Rosenblatt 
 wrote:

> I have a suggestion - would it be possible to spell check the subject
> line also - It would be really nice if there was some way to make that
> happen.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

-Sauce unknown



From alex at alex.org.uk  Tue Sep 22 02:33:00 2009
From: alex at alex.org.uk (Alex Bligh)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:33:00 +0100
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Suggestion for additional spell checking
In-Reply-To: <122D363BB4BE58A037558AD2@[10.0.0.199]>
References: <386B6EECB41A7E04694DB700@secdesk.columbia.edu>
	<122D363BB4BE58A037558AD2@[10.0.0.199]>
Message-ID: 



--On 21 September 2009 22:25:21 -0700 Kenneth Porter 
 wrote:

> Eye strike a key and type a word

Surely "Eye strike a quay an tie powered'?

-- 
Alex Bligh

From gessel at blackrosetech.com  Wed Sep 23 07:00:32 2009
From: gessel at blackrosetech.com (David Gessel)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:00:32 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] I'd rather GPG not give an error when it can't
	find a key
Message-ID: <85BDB511133E65E414FC7F19@bernadinism>

I had reason to update my GPG installation recently and tested out 
encryption again.  My oldest key on my keyring is from 1993 (with a 
compuserve address!) and I had forgotten why I stopped using encryption.  I 
tried sending a message to someone who had just sent me their key and it 
seemed that setting encrypt and sign by default for my Identity would be 
optimal.  Then I sent a message to someone who didn't have a key on either 
my keyring or the pgp.mit.edu server. DOH!

The delay while checking the keyserver was tolerable, though I assume it 
would be an ugly error if I was disconnected from the network and it 
couldn't get through.  But the error mulberry reports is a pain in the ass. 
It is nice to know the key couldn't be found, but I didn't expect it to be 
and I don't want to have to manually turn off encryption for the vast 
majority of mail I send.

So, of course, I, like probably everyone else, turned off "encrypt by 
default" and of course I, like probably everyone else, will not encrypt any 
messages for years (perhaps decades), even to people I have keys for on my 
local keyring.

Optimal behavior:

- Always sign the message

- If all of the recipients keys are available encrypt the message by 
default.

- if none of the recipients keys are available, dialog offering to cancel 
sending to keyless recipients or send the message unencrypted with an 
optional message (such as "get GPG at..."). Ask if my selection should be 
the silent default from now on.

- If some of the recipients keys are available and some are not, then bug 
me to choose whether to send the message unencrypted to all, remove the 
key-less recipients and encrypt to the rest, or split the message and send 
an encrypted message to the keyed recipients and an unencrypted message to 
the keyless recipients as above (as in BCC behavior). Ask if my selection 
should be silent default from now on.

It'd be fine to just not get any warning about missing keys, then I'd 
encrypt by default and be happy that at least some of my mail flow was 
encrypted, not just those things I'd rather not have intercepted (thus 
flagging them as things that might be interesting to intercept).

Thunderbird's plug-in allows you to select recipients you always encrypt 
to, which is a fine solution (it would be fine to always encrypt to 
everyone on my local keyring).  Another useful option in Thunderbird is 
"always reply to encrypted messages with encryption." 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de  Wed Sep 23 07:28:18 2009
From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:28:18 +0200
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] I'd rather GPG not give an error when it
 can't	find a key
In-Reply-To: <85BDB511133E65E414FC7F19@bernadinism>
References: <85BDB511133E65E414FC7F19@bernadinism>
Message-ID: 

--On 23. September 2009 04:00:32 -0700 David Gessel 
 wrote:

> Another useful option in Thunderbird is "always reply to encrypted
> messages with encryption."

Mulberry has something not quite like that, but similar: Preferences -> 
Security -> Warn when responding without encryption

My biggest wish right now would be to be able to choose between PGP and 
S/MIME on the fly. Verifying/decrypting both works fine, but you have to 
decide for one or the other for signing and encrypting.
-- 
     .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb?ude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
                 .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
.:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-478-5587.:.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

From gessel at blackrosetech.com  Wed Sep 23 14:58:28 2009
From: gessel at blackrosetech.com (David Gessel)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:58:28 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] I'd rather GPG not give an error when it
 can't	find a key
In-Reply-To: 
References: <85BDB511133E65E414FC7F19@bernadinism>
	
Message-ID: <5C4AD96C8B730702424A08F6@bernadinism>

Yes, I should have mentioned that feature, but again, the problem isn't so 
much that one cannot achieve the same result but rather that the process is 
one of nagging not automatically doing the right thing.   I like mulberry 
because it is generally the most efficient platform for dealing with mail, 
but the encryption handling process hasn't been streamlined.

I do like the verification/decryption behavior, and adding incoming certs 
works very well also. I haven't run into a problem with defaulting to PGP, 
under what circumstances do you need to default to switch to (or default 
to) S/MIME?



--On Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:28 PM +0200 Sebastian Hagedorn 
 wrote:

> --On 23. September 2009 04:00:32 -0700 David Gessel
>  wrote:
>
>> Another useful option in Thunderbird is "always reply to encrypted
>> messages with encryption."
>
> Mulberry has something not quite like that, but similar: Preferences ->
> Security -> Warn when responding without encryption
>
> My biggest wish right now would be to be able to choose between PGP and
> S/MIME on the fly. Verifying/decrypting both works fine, but you have to
> decide for one or the other for signing and encrypting.
> --
>      .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb?ude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
>                  .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
> .:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-478-5587.:.



From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de  Thu Sep 24 04:37:57 2009
From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:37:57 +0200
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] I'd rather GPG not give an error when it
 can't	find a key
In-Reply-To: <5C4AD96C8B730702424A08F6@bernadinism>
References: <85BDB511133E65E414FC7F19@bernadinism>
	
	<5C4AD96C8B730702424A08F6@bernadinism>
Message-ID: <851298883A269692955A6F2C@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>

--On 23. September 2009 11:58:28 -0700 David Gessel 
 wrote:

> I do like the verification/decryption behavior, and adding incoming certs
> works very well also.

Right, that's not what I mean.

> I haven't run into a problem with defaulting to
> PGP, under what circumstances do you need to default to switch to (or
> default to) S/MIME?

Some of my correspondents use PGP, others use S/MIME. I can't use 
encryption for both groups.
-- 
     .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb?ude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
                 .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
.:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-478-5587.:.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

From jim at lang.hm  Tue Sep 29 19:27:20 2009
From: jim at lang.hm (James E. Lang)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:27:20 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
Message-ID: 

I am running Mulberry Mail v4.0.8 on Kubuntu 9.04 with KDE 4.3.

I want to search a pair of mailboxes for all the messages that are a part of a 
particular thread.

I first select one of the mailboxes to be searched and click "Search" on the 
tool bar. I then set up the search criteria e.g. header field Message-ID 
a_message_id OR header field In-Reply-To same_message_id OR header field 
References same_message_id. I have no trouble this far.

Next I click "Add..." to add a second mailbox that I know contains some of the 
messages in that thread. I am presented with my tree of mailboxes but Mulberry 
Mail terminates when I try to expand a branch of that tree. FWIW, I have over 
600 mailboxes with some nested within others.

What am I doing wrong?

-- 
Jim

From mailinglists at nierenschaden.de  Wed Sep 30 06:06:16 2009
From: mailinglists at nierenschaden.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Jens_D=C3=B6nhoff?=)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:06:16 +0200
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <08E2F0B0AE82839E0ECD4B92@[10.17.76.212]>

Hi,

--On Tuesday, September 29, 2009 04:27:20 PM -0700 "James E. Lang" 
 wrote:

> Next I click "Add..." to add a second mailbox that I know contains
> some of the messages in that thread. I am presented with my tree of
> mailboxes but Mulberry Mail terminates when I try to expand a branch
> of that tree. FWIW, I have over 600 mailboxes with some nested within
> others.

I've experienced similar crashes with the search dialog in the Linux 
version... try selecting the mailboxes in the Servers/mailbox view, and 
then choosing search (via Meta-y or clicking something).

> What am I doing wrong?

I guess nothing ... the Linux version of Mulberry has some major bugs 
causing crashes along the way.

At the moment it's very complicated (to say the least) to build the 
Linux version from the sources (as being discussed on the -dev list 
recently), which is a major obstacle in even trying to fix those bugs.

But nevertheless I've found that I just have to avoid doing certain 
things a certain way (like adding mailboxes in the search dialog) - and 
usually there's other ways to get those things done. And even with some 
crashes here and there, Mulberry just rocks! :)

Greetings,

Jens
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

From shiva at sewingwitch.com  Wed Sep 30 08:38:35 2009
From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:38:35 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

--On Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:27 PM -0700 "James E. Lang" 
 wrote:

> Next I click "Add..." to add a second mailbox that I know contains some
> of the messages in that thread. I am presented with my tree of mailboxes
> but Mulberry Mail terminates when I try to expand a branch of that tree.
> FWIW, I have over 600 mailboxes with some nested within others.

Sounds like a bug in the tree control. Might be limited to the Linux 
version. But I think I've seem similar things happen under Windows. If 
someone can get my branch to build under Linux, it's possible my fixes 
would cover that.



From jim at lang.hm  Wed Sep 30 08:40:49 2009
From: jim at lang.hm (James E. Lang)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:40:49 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
In-Reply-To: <08E2F0B0AE82839E0ECD4B92@[10.17.76.212]>
References: 
	<08E2F0B0AE82839E0ECD4B92@[10.17.76.212]>
Message-ID: 

Thank you, Jens.

"Total: 2    Foun 2      Messag 209"

(Note the clipping of text strings once more.)

--On Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:06:16 PM +0200 Jens D?nhoff 
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> --On Tuesday, September 29, 2009 04:27:20 PM -0700 "James E. Lang"
>  wrote:
>
>> Next I click "Add..." to add a second mailbox that I know contains
>> some of the messages in that thread. I am presented with my tree of
>> mailboxes but Mulberry Mail terminates when I try to expand a branch
>> of that tree. FWIW, I have over 600 mailboxes with some nested within
>> others.
>
> I've experienced similar crashes with the search dialog in the Linux
> version... try selecting the mailboxes in the Servers/mailbox view, and then
> choosing search (via Meta-y or clicking something).

And just what is "Meta" in _this_ case? I have not found it to be consistently 
any one thing. Thus, I click.

>> What am I doing wrong?
>
> I guess nothing ... the Linux version of Mulberry has some major bugs causing
> crashes along the way.
>
> At the moment it's very complicated (to say the least) to build the Linux
> version from the sources (as being discussed on the -dev list recently),
> which is a major obstacle in even trying to fix those bugs.

Yes, that is what I said over there.

> But nevertheless I've found that I just have to avoid doing certain things a
> certain way (like adding mailboxes in the search dialog) - and usually
> there's other ways to get those things done. And even with some crashes here
> and there, Mulberry just rocks! :)

Precisely. Using another mail client with which I have had considerable 
experience took at least 5000 times as long to search for the same information 
the first time and at least 20 times as long subsequent times having built a 
cache of the mailboxes in question the first time. Either way, Mulberry Mail 
won hands down.

-- 
Jim

From jim at lang.hm  Wed Sep 30 08:47:27 2009
From: jim at lang.hm (James E. Lang)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:47:27 -0700
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
	
Message-ID: 



--On Wednesday, September 30, 2009 05:38:35 AM -0700 Kenneth Porter 
 wrote:

> --On Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:27 PM -0700 "James E. Lang" 
> wrote:
>
>> Next I click "Add..." to add a second mailbox that I know contains some
>> of the messages in that thread. I am presented with my tree of mailboxes
>> but Mulberry Mail terminates when I try to expand a branch of that tree.
>> FWIW, I have over 600 mailboxes with some nested within others.
>
> Sounds like a bug in the tree control. Might be limited to the Linux version.
> But I think I've seem similar things happen under Windows. If someone can get
> my branch to build under Linux, it's possible my fixes would cover that.

I'm glad someone has a fix for things. We just wish, as you appear to also, 
that building the Linux version were not such a major issue. Hasn't anyone 
solved that yet? You, Jens, my son David, and I can't be the only ones who have 
complaints about the process of building Mulberry Mail for Linux. Which 
platform was the original one for Mulberry Mail -- Windows, Mac, or Linux?

But I digress.

-- 
Jim

From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de  Wed Sep 30 10:07:39 2009
From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:07:39 +0200
Subject: [Mulberry-discuss] Mulberry Mail terminating during Search setup
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
	
	
Message-ID: 

--On 30. September 2009 05:47:27 -0700 "James E. Lang"  wrote:

> Which platform was the original one for Mulberry Mail -- Windows, Mac, or
> Linux?

Mac. The Windows, Linux ? and at one point even Solaris ? releases came 
later.
-- 
     .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb?ude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
                 .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
.:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-478-5587.:.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: