Subject: Help - address display in header fields (fwd)

From: Shawn Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:19:45 -0400 (EDT)

I noticed an annoying change in 4.00 , in the older version, when a
message was displayed, the email addresses would list all the way to the
last column like this

	From	: [email-masked]
	To	: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] 
	Cc	: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked] 

Now, it displays with a carriage return after each item :

	From	: [email-masked]
	To	: [email-masked],
		  [email-masked],
		  [email-masked] 
	Cc	: [email-masked],
		  [email-masked],
		  [email-masked] 

Is there an option to set it back ?  I get a lot of messages with huge
recipient lists, and I hate paging down 2 or 3 times before I get to the
message body.

Thanks,

    Shawn Jeffries
    [email-masked]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:35:18 -0400 (EDT)

Could you have a smaller thing to bitch about???
Dude, press ctrl-v a couple of times, and don't be so damn lazy.

---

From: Shawn Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:40:59 -0400 (EDT)

Listen asshole :

If you got mail lists 50 people long, you'd try to find a fix.

    Shawn Jeffries
    [email-masked]

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:50:19 -0400 (EDT)

Hey fuckstain:

man procmail
man awk
man sed
man egrep

Thanks for playing, please try again.

> >> I noticed an annoying change in 4.00 , in the older version, when a

Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: Peter Green <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:25:37 -0500 (CDT)

> man egrep

Relax, he didn't exactly ask about procmail, awk, sed, or egrep. He asked
if it were possible in *PINE*. All you did was try to act übercool, totally
ignoring his question. It would be understandable if, in your first post,
you offered the above as a solution; however you just shot your mouth off
instead. Now, do you have a pine-related answer or not? If not, why don't
you refrain from "answering"?

/pg

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:10:06 -0400

Author:	Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:50:19 -0400 (EDT)
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> Thanks for playing, please try again.

Ken, really, take a pill.

It's an annoying change, and it is due to PINE.

I've got a message which is _fine_ but when PINE gets ahold of it, it screws  
it up.  procmail et al are USELESS as was your response in this situation.

Would you like a copy of the message with hundreds of addresses that now  
scrolls dozens of times more than it needs to?

I'm all for getting people to read the FAQ or checking DejaNews, but when  
someone asks a legit question that hasn't been answered before describing an  
annoying new behavior, must you spout off?  And if so, could you at least  
attempt to grasp the problem enough to give a suggestion that would have a  
chance in hell of helping, rather than blathering off about man pages to  
programs which won't help the situation?

TjL

---

From: David Dyck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:29:07 -0700

Another example showed up today, that reminded me that it would be nice
to have kill files in pine, or I will need to hand edit my .procmailrc
again :-)

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:12:28 -0400 (EDT)

> you refrain from "answering"?

If the luser would actually rtfm, he would know that he could grep the
other addresses out, before they even get to pine!!!

Whatever. 
I really don't give a fuck if he has to page thru the extra header info.
Mine works.

Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:17:30 -0400 (EDT)

> it up.  procmail et al are USELESS as was your response in this situation.

BULLSHIT!!!!
You have _NO_ clue what you are talking about.
Set up a procmail recipe, grep the To: info, awk anything other than the
first address out.
Simple.

OR, as I said in my _ORIGINAL_ post, just press ctrl-v.

> scrolls dozens of times more than it needs to?

No.
As I said in my pervious response, I don't care.
Mine works.

> annoying new behavior, must you spout off?  

Whatever.
Go away.

> And if so, could you at least  

See above, you clueless fuck.

Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: "Colin J. Raven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:54:15 -0700

Ken,
The definition of brilliance is not what you know, but the graciousness with
which you overlook the shortcomings of others.
You are clearly having a stressful day, night...and maybe have taken some
medication which is causing your antisocial behaviour. That's OK Ken, we
understand that you may be unable to control your keyboard Tourette
Syndrome.
I vivdly recall once being in the grip of that accursed disorder. It caused
me to periodically experience uncontrollable trembling, and a tendency to
utter (and type) inappropriate things like; "Underpants on Fire" for no
particular reason.
We feel your pain Ken, acutely. In fact your pain is causing us all pain!
May I recommend therapy, perhaps hand hacking Xconfig files for two weeks
straight until your affliction has subsided?
----<Humor Over, Now for the brawl>
BTW, although *I* might well be described as a "clueless f*&ck" because I am
NOT a programming genius as you clearly are, (in fact you must be the Albert
Einstein of programming based upon your insufferable arrogance, and
disgustingly inappropriate language) BUT, the gentleman (and he is a
gentleman BTW) who replied to you is not clueless as you suggest. Instead,
he engaged you in a discussion, and from a position of knowledge I might
add.
Ken, get a life, a wife, a prescription...something. No-one on this list has
any time for your behaviour. You will be procmailed out of most people's
Inboxes I rather suspect (including my own) Your behaviour is pathetic and
unforgivable.
You owe the list members an apology, and should really address your manner
of communicating via email. It is in a word UNACCEPTABLE!
Good Night Sir, I hope your hard drive crashes, your connection dies, and
your Motherboard takes the Mother of all dumps. You deserve no less.
-Colin.

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:03:55 -0400 (EDT)

Ok, you win.
I'm wrong, you're right.
(this is entirely too much trouble, and like I said, mine works.)

Perhaps if some of you lusers would actually take the time to RTFM, you
wouldn't have these stupid little problems.

Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:21:50 -0400

Author:	Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:17:30 -0400 (EDT)
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> > I've got a message which is _fine_ but when PINE gets ahold of it, it
> > screws it up. procmail et al are USELESS as was your response in this
> > situation.
>
> BULLSHIT!!!!

Apparently you believe that to be true for everyone on the planet besides yourself.

> Set up a procmail recipe, grep the To: info, awk anything other than the

Oh yeah, that's useful, as long as you don't mind losing all the information  
about who the message was sent to.

Your suggestion wasn't useless, it was stupid.

> OR, as I said in my _ORIGINAL_ post, just press ctrl-v.

I saw your original post.  It still doesn't address the issue of why PINE  
changed this behavior, why it wasn't made optional.

It's not a great workaround.

If there was some keystroke to "skip down to the end of the headers" then  
that would be helpful.

> As I said in my pervious response, I don't care.

It works for you, it doesn't work for others.

> > someone asks a legit question that hasn't been answered before describing
> > an annoying new behavior, must you spout off?
>
> Whatever.
> Go away.

No.  I'm not going to be pushed around by someone with nothing better to do  
than spout off superiority-complex when someone asks a question you decide  
isn't useful.

Can someone offer any suggestions that will not lose all the information  
stored in the headers besides "just ignore it and ctrl-v" ?

TjL

---

From: Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:44:01 -0400 (EDT)

> about who the message was sent to.

Who said anything about loosing them??? Redirect them into a temp file.
Assuming you want to reply, redirect them back into the headers.  
Duh.
Not all that difficult.

> Your suggestion wasn't useless, it was stupid.

Whatever.
A) You're lazy  
B) You whine too much 
C) You obviously don't know dick about the systems that you are using.
   RTFM, asshole.

> changed this behavior, why it wasn't made optional.

Who the fuck cares???
Don't be so goddamn lazy!!!!

> It's not a great workaround.

Works fine for me.

> If there was some keystroke to "skip down to the end of the headers" then  

You really are a lazy bastard, aren't you???

> stored in the headers besides "just ignore it and ctrl-v" ?

The answer is no.
Go back to 3.9x if you don't like the way that 4.0x works.

This is my final response to this thread. 

(any response to this is going to /dev/null, so, really, don't take the
time to respond.  I'm never going to get it)

--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:52:41 -0400

Author:	Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:44:01 -0400 (EDT)
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> > Oh yeah, that's useful, as long as you don't mind losing all the
> > information about who the message was sent to.
>

I said nothing about "loosing" them.  However, I was, concerned about  
"losing" them.

Redirecting them to a temp file?  What if I don't read the message as soon  
as it comes in?  What do I keep these temp files around?  For how long would  
you suggest?

Rather a moronic option that makes like more difficult.

> C) You obviously don't know dick about the systems that you are using.

yeah whatever Ken

> RTFM, asshole.

Which thus sums up Ken's entire vocabulary.

I know the system I am using fine.  I have a several thousand line set of  
procmail recipes.  I just don't want to hack the message to make up for what  
PINE decided to do.

> > changed this behavior, why it wasn't made optional.

Me.

> Don't be so goddamn lazy!!!!

The computer and the programs I use are supposed to make my life easier.   
PINE's latest change has made it more difficult.  This is going at it the  
wrong way.

> > It's not a great workaround.

But you just can't see that others can not like your idea and still not be  
mentally incompetent.

> You really are a lazy bastard, aren't you???

Yeah, I want the computer to do things which will make me have to do less.   
I want my mail-reading program to have the features which will make reading  
email as easy and take as short amount of time & frustration as possible so I  
can get on with my life off the computer.

> This is my final response to this thread.

The only helpful thing you've said so far.

> time to respond.  I'm never going to get it)

I'll respond with the hopes that someone who isn't a foul-mouthed control  
freak with a self-esteem problem might have a solution.... Or perhaps the  
PINE folks would be willing to make this "feature" optional.

TjL

---

From: "Glenn A. Malling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:52:43 -0400

Now that the shouting seems to be quieting down . . .

You can prune those To: lists with a display filter.
It won't be exactly easy since the filter will have
to include a decent RFC822 parser.  Anyway take a
look at Setup|Config|display-filters.  It's down
near the end of the Setup|Config screens.

-- 
Glenn A. Malling <[email-masked]>
Syracuse University Computing Services   +1 (315) 443-4111
220 Machinery Hall  Syracuse, New York 13244-1260

Postmaster for SUnix and LISTSERV.

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:35:49 -0400

Author:	Ken Woods <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> wouldn't have these stupid little problems.

There's no FM to R in this case.

Your ideas about seg/awk/grep was not really a solution.

This behavior is new to PINE and the solution should be in PINE, not in  
having to do Unix gymnastics to get it to work.

TjL

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:41:28 -0400

Author:	"Glenn A. Malling" <[email-masked]>
	Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:52:43 -0400
	ID:	<[email-masked]>

> You can prune those To: lists with a display filter.

I'd really just be happy if there were a way to make PINE go back to the old  
behavior of putting as many addresses on one line as will fit.

I agree that the new behavior looks nicer in many circumstances, but where  
there are a lot of addresses, fitting them more compactly would be  
preferable.

TjL

---

From: "Colin J. Raven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 21:27:57 -0700 (PDT)

Ken,
	I'm glad "yours works" first of all.
	Secondly, I wan't defending a practice or technique. Frankly I
know only the most fundamental aspects of procmail, and next to nothing
about some of the exotica concerning mail transport, and the finer points
of message headers. 
	The purpose of the list (oh duh) is to discover how to accomplish 
certain tasks, the techniques of which elude the comprehension of certain
members. That's why I'm a a member....to learn.
	Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you when you state that more RTFM
would answer *some*  questions, and would cut down on list traffic
measureably.....perhaps. This list is quieter now than previously, believe
me 
	That however is not the core issue. The level of expertise on this
list is (in general) quite high. Also, sometimes members *do* ask
questions that *probably* could be found via RTFM. Since the indivuiduals
concerned are not clueless newbies, they may need an answer fairly rapidly
because they have a serious problem on-site. I believe it's called leeway,
and tolerance Ken. In short, they get answers. Sometimes that might be
accompanied by a "and you can find more on this at 
http://someURLatUWash.edu" 
	Come on Ken, is your time *so* precious, and are you *so* self
involved that you belittle someone (seriously in my view) for not knowing
that xx piece of information *might* reside on *some* directory
*somewehere* in the public domain?? I might remind you that the first line
of your resume at http://www.kens.com is;
	"To apply current technical expertise while continuing growth of
knowledge and skills."
	I took the time to look at your site because I couldn't believe
the level of arrogance you brought to that exchange with Tim. Your
skillset is indeed impressive, and without doubt you are miles ahead of me
(for starters) in general and specific technical knowledge. Tell me this
though, *How did you learn all that?* Did someone try to cut you into
filets verbally if you asked a question, when the answer could be found in
a book?? How can you continue to grow your knowledge and skills, when the
humility necessary for true acquisition of knowledge is clearly absent.
	Then again, as Dennis Miller has been known to say; "That's just
my opinion....I could be wrong". 
Regards,
-Colin.
--
Colin J. Raven
Operations Manager, HDS Lab, Inc.
Costa Mesa, CA  |  Harrison, NY
"There aren't enough DIMM slots in my machine to even think of running
Xemacs, I'm gonna have eight more beers and fire up LaTeX"
*Fred Pasternack 1952-1998 (Unix Guru and Industrial Strength Partier)

> > >See above, you clueless fuck.

----------------------------------
Colin J. Raven
HDS Lab, Inc. Operations Group
Costa Mesa, CA  |  Harrison, NY
(714) 428 0300  |  (914) 835 2200

---

From: Mike Brudenell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:16:51 +0100

Hi!

> If you got mail lists 50 people long, you'd try to find a fix.

May I take the liberty of ignoring the majority of "highly informative"
responses in this thread and instead suggest another possible (better?)
solution...

If you are receiving messages with very long recipient lists then, rather
than have each and every recipient either silently suffering or trying to
figure out a workaround, the better solution might be to get the problem
fixed "at source"?

You might like to contact the people responsible for sending out the
messages and ask they start lisiting the recipients using the "Bcc:" header
rather than the "To:" or "Cc:" headers.

As you probably know "To:" is for listing the prime recipients of the
message, with carbon-copies (eg, for "information only" purposes) being
listsed in the "Cc:" header.

The often overlooked "Bcc:" (Blind Carbon Copy) can be used to list
recipients *but* with the addition that the entire recipient list is removed
from the delivered copyof the message.  This means that you wouldn't get to
see the list of 50+ recipients in your message at all!  (It also has the
added advantage of preventing the dreaded "reply-to-all" problem, where
people reply to the every recipient rather than just the original poster.)

Note that if you do use "Bcc:" you should ensure that there is at least one
valid address given in the "To:" header too; otherwise some brain-dead mail
delivery agents throw a wobbly and insert each and every supposedly
concealed "Bcc:" recipient in a series of "Apparently-to:" headers (which
rather defeats the object! :-)

A useful trick to know, if you don't want to put a real e-mail address in
the "To:" field, is to put in a string (usually a descriptive name of the
list or just something like "Various recipients") with the magic sequence
	:;
at its end.  For example:
	Bcc:  Various recipients:;

Most mail delivery software will recognise this as being a valid address but
which doesn't need anything delivering to it.  (I think it's called
something like "group syntax" ... I forget.)

Cheers,

Mike B-)
--
The Computing Service, University of York, Heslington, York, Yo10 5DD, UK
Tel:+44-1904-433811   Fax:+44-1904-433740    http://www.york.ac.uk/~pmb1/
*******  Unsolicited commercial/bulk e-mail is NOT welcome here!  *******

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:06:04 +0800

Mike,

> responses in this thread and instead suggest another possible (better?)

Yes, you may.  :-)

> figure out a workaround, the better solution might be to get the problem

[Very good suggestions removed for brevity]

The "source" the problem for me are often people in other companies.  Some
of
these are a level where I'd rather not risk offending them or troubling them
with
technical questions or details they are bound to ask...yet not understand.

Basically, I see the source of the problem to be the new display routine.
It hadn't
bothered me during the beta test period, but then again I didn't get such an
email
during the beta test.

By and large, I can see no drawback in having multiple names on the same
line but I can
agree that there are drawbacks in the new format.  So, if there are no bugs
or unstated
drawback with returning to the old format I'd simply like to see that
happen.

Regards,
Ed

---

From: Joe DiBenedetto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:34:51 -0400 (EDT)

> something like "group syntax" ... I forget.)

Love the idea, but one problem...Pine seperates the : and ; by a space after
you type in "Various recipients:;" so it ends up looking like this:

To: Various recipients: ;

Unfortunately, sendmail bounces a copy of the message back to me as
undeliverable, even though it does deliver the message to the Bcc: list.
I've tried everything short of gluing the : and ; together, to no avail.

Any suggestions?

Joe:D

---

From: Mike Brudenell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:01:48 +0100

--On Mon, Jul 27, 1998 4:34 pm -0400 Joe DiBenedetto <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Love the idea, but one problem...Pine seperates the : and ; by a space
> after you type in "Various recipients:;" so it ends up looking like this: 
> 

This shouldn't matter at all.  Certainly our sendmail (version 8.8.7)
happily accepts this.

> I've tried everything short of gluing the : and ; together, to no avail.

This sounds unusual: the only time we've ever seen a problem is back in the
days when all our mail was relayed through a server running PP before
reaching sendmail on our delivery host.  PP didn't understand the ":;" magic
and faked up some strange address whilst adding a parse-error warning
header.

You may like to check which version of the sendmail software your site is
running (telnetting to the SMTP port on your server will probably tell you
this.

A silly question you can check at the same time (forgive me if you're the
system administrator as you probably already know the answer!) but are you
sure sendmail is being used?  Some sites use other software (qmail, smail,
etc) and I don't know how these handle ":;" ... mind, having said that I've
never heard of anyone else have ":;" flagged as being undeliverable.

Cheers,

Mike B-)