Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Attach JPG in .signature
459 views
Skip to first unread message
Alby VA
Apr 13, 2012, 5:34:09 PM4/13/12
to
Is it possible to attach a JPG (or GIF, TIFF, etc) as my .signature
file in MUTT?
I tried using (set signature) in .muttrc, but that just loads in
gibberish.
Is there a way to load a picture as a signature file as an auto-
attachment on every email?
It does work if I use (a) for attach-file before I send the msg. But
can that be automated?
Jorgen Grahn
Apr 13, 2012, 6:36:33 PM4/13/12
to
On Fri, 2012-04-13, Alby VA wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible to attach a JPG (or GIF, TIFF, etc) as my .signature
> file in MUTT?
> I tried using (set signature) in .muttrc, but that just loads in
> gibberish.
>
> Is there a way to load a picture as a signature file as an auto-
> attachment on every email?
I don't think so. The traditional internet mail signature is part of
>
>
> Is it possible to attach a JPG (or GIF, TIFF, etc) as my .signature
> file in MUTT?
> I tried using (set signature) in .muttrc, but that just loads in
> gibberish.
>
> Is there a way to load a picture as a signature file as an auto-
> attachment on every email?
the text body of the mail. An image isn't text.
What would it look like to a mutt user, anyway? Just an annoying and
useless attachment, like the ones I get from Outlook users.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Alby VA
Apr 15, 2012, 12:12:42 AM4/15/12
to
facebook, twitter, etc locations?
Here is my situation My employer wants me to have a signature that
includes those little facebook, twitter, icons with the links to the
company's pages. The trouble I'm having is how do you create that
in mutt? It is designed for people with MS Outlook, but I'm not sure
how
you do it in Mutt. Is there a way to create some type of MIME
signature
with that setup?
Thanks,
Jorgen Grahn
Apr 15, 2012, 1:47:50 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 2012-04-15, Alby VA wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-13, Alby VA wrote:
>>
>> > Is it possible to attach a JPG (or GIF, TIFF, etc) as my .signature
>> > file in MUTT?
>> > I tried using (set signature) in .muttrc, but that just loads in
>> > gibberish.
>>
>> > Is there a way to load a picture as a signature file as an auto-
>> > attachment on every email?
>>
>> I don't think so. The traditional internet mail signature is part of
>> the text body of the mail. An image isn't text.
>>
>> What would it look like to a mutt user, anyway? Just an annoying and
>> useless attachment, like the ones I get from Outlook users.
>
> On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-13, Alby VA wrote:
>>
>> > Is it possible to attach a JPG (or GIF, TIFF, etc) as my .signature
>> > file in MUTT?
>> > I tried using (set signature) in .muttrc, but that just loads in
>> > gibberish.
>>
>> > Is there a way to load a picture as a signature file as an auto-
>> > attachment on every email?
>>
>> I don't think so. The traditional internet mail signature is part of
>> the text body of the mail. An image isn't text.
>>
>> What would it look like to a mutt user, anyway? Just an annoying and
>> useless attachment, like the ones I get from Outlook users.
>
> How about a graphical type of signature that includes html links to
> facebook, twitter, etc locations?
>
> Here is my situation My employer wants me to have a signature that
> includes those little facebook, twitter, icons with the links to the
> company's pages. The trouble I'm having is how do you create that
> in mutt? It is designed for people with MS Outlook, but I'm not sure
> how
> you do it in Mutt. Is there a way to create some type of MIME
> signature
> with that setup?
If we forget about Mutt for a moment and look at MIME ...
> facebook, twitter, etc locations?
>
> Here is my situation My employer wants me to have a signature that
> includes those little facebook, twitter, icons with the links to the
> company's pages. The trouble I'm having is how do you create that
> in mutt? It is designed for people with MS Outlook, but I'm not sure
> how
> you do it in Mutt. Is there a way to create some type of MIME
> signature
> with that setup?
I assume that the only reasonable MIME format you can handle in Mutt
is text/plain. I.e. that plain text is the only kind you can easily
compose, quote and reply to, and so on. That's all I'e tried, anyway.
Then your options are these (unless I missed something):
1) Plain text links like my mail address below. Your boss probably
won't like it.
2) Make your message multipart/mixed, with first a text/plain section,
then a second inline text/html section[1] which is the signature. The
latter has all the colorful buttons etc.
That's sound according to MIME, but I doubt whether popular mail
software would display it correctly. Chances are the human readers
would be puzzled, too.
It's not too hard to sit down with a text editor and construct such
a message, and look at it using different MUAs to see how they
react.
Finally, I'm not sure how to create such a signature using Mutt.
It's not what the .sigature file supports, like I explained above.
You'd need some other mechanism.
3) Stop using Mutt for work mail.
Myself, I'm fortunate. At my workplace we do have some kind of
standard signature with company logo, a link to the web site and
street address, etc. But that one is easily approximated as plain
text, and noone has bugged me about it. Also, it helps that I never
send mail on behalf of the company.
/Jorgen
[1] Actually, to be polite to text readers like Mutt too, the structure
should be something like this (not counting embedded images):
multipart/mixed
-- text/plain main message
-- multipart/alternative
-- text/html HTML signature
-- text/plain text signature
Message has been deleted
Jorgen Grahn
Apr 15, 2012, 6:34:24 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 2012-04-15, Andreas Mattheiss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> sorry for becoming slightly OT here by diverting from the technical core
> of the question, but:
> client, will be detrimental, both in the short and long run. Reason why I
> am so picky here: Ever tried to send encrypted/signed mail from Outlook to
> non-outlook receipients like mutters? It won't work. Outlook is fiddling
> with S/MIME attachments, making them useless for any non-outlook
> receipient. In the good old days email clients were supposed to adhere to
> RFCs, but outlook, with the oompf of a mega-company behind it, blatantly
> ignores this if they feel like it. It is up to your immagination where
> this may lead to, eventually. Other commercial applications are much more
> benign; Lotus Notes for example handles encrypted mail gracefully.
>
> Coming up with a solution pampering Outlook therefore simply looks wrong
> to me. But if the Boss wants it, there's unlikely to be a discussion.
Another data point:
In one work place of mine (not the one I mentioned earlier) ~98% uses
Outlook. I am one of them. I think the right strategy in such a place
is to use Outlook like everyone else. Really.
There, I post in RTF format. I switch fonts and colors to get my
message through as efficiently as possible, and I don't use normal '>'
quoting. Then one of the remaining 2% comes along replying with a
text-only MUA and destroys everything. I cannot even respond
properly, because Outlook cannot handle normal '>' quoting, and most
of the 98% aren't used to it anyway.
So, we can't deal with Outlook users, and they can't deal with us.
This isn't going to change.
(This applies /inside/ a 98% Outlook organization. People who use
Outlook for /internet/ mail have to get used to the pain, and I don't
try to appease them.)
> Hello,
>
> sorry for becoming slightly OT here by diverting from the technical core
> of the question, but:
>
> Am Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:12:42 -0700 schrieb Alby VA:
>> It is designed for people with MS Outlook, but I'm not sure how
>> you do it in Mutt.
>
> I think trying to satisfy Outlook, which is a specific vendor's email
> Am Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:12:42 -0700 schrieb Alby VA:
>> It is designed for people with MS Outlook, but I'm not sure how
>> you do it in Mutt.
>
> client, will be detrimental, both in the short and long run. Reason why I
> am so picky here: Ever tried to send encrypted/signed mail from Outlook to
> non-outlook receipients like mutters? It won't work. Outlook is fiddling
> with S/MIME attachments, making them useless for any non-outlook
> receipient. In the good old days email clients were supposed to adhere to
> RFCs, but outlook, with the oompf of a mega-company behind it, blatantly
> ignores this if they feel like it. It is up to your immagination where
> this may lead to, eventually. Other commercial applications are much more
> benign; Lotus Notes for example handles encrypted mail gracefully.
>
> Coming up with a solution pampering Outlook therefore simply looks wrong
> to me. But if the Boss wants it, there's unlikely to be a discussion.
Another data point:
In one work place of mine (not the one I mentioned earlier) ~98% uses
Outlook. I am one of them. I think the right strategy in such a place
is to use Outlook like everyone else. Really.
There, I post in RTF format. I switch fonts and colors to get my
message through as efficiently as possible, and I don't use normal '>'
quoting. Then one of the remaining 2% comes along replying with a
text-only MUA and destroys everything. I cannot even respond
properly, because Outlook cannot handle normal '>' quoting, and most
of the 98% aren't used to it anyway.
So, we can't deal with Outlook users, and they can't deal with us.
This isn't going to change.
(This applies /inside/ a 98% Outlook organization. People who use
Outlook for /internet/ mail have to get used to the pain, and I don't
try to appease them.)
indulekha
Apr 15, 2012, 8:27:17 AM4/15/12
to
My mom accomplishes that sort of thing with winders
live mail though.
--
❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
Indulekha
Message has been deleted
Alby VA
Apr 16, 2012, 1:43:47 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 15, 4:26 pm, Andreas Mattheiss <please.p...@publicly.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know it is not what the OP has in mind, but, from the days of
> yesteryears, there's X-Face which allows you to attach small b/w
> pictures:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Face
>
> It lives as an additional item in the header. Of course no fancy things
> like html-links, etc. Just a 90's sort of thingy, really. It has to be
> supported on the receiving mail program of course.
>
> Regards
> Andreas
Thanks everybody. It looks like Microsoft's non-compliance to RFC
formats
is the real problem. Now I figure out a work-around solution to my
issue.
What I'm thinking is that I'll only use Outlook when communicating
with my
Boss, so to them, it appears like I'm in compliance. But when I'm
communicating
with others outside my company, I'll just use the ASCII segment of the
signature
and ignore the graphic add-on the boss wants.
And since there are no "signature" police checking outgoing mail,
nobody will
be the wiser. I'm just trying to stay on and use Mutt for as long as
possible.
I'm an old school previous (elm) user who converted to mutt in 1999
because of
the Y2K issues with elm.
Too bad there aren't any RFC police.
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know it is not what the OP has in mind, but, from the days of
> yesteryears, there's X-Face which allows you to attach small b/w
> pictures:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Face
>
> It lives as an additional item in the header. Of course no fancy things
> like html-links, etc. Just a 90's sort of thingy, really. It has to be
> supported on the receiving mail program of course.
>
> Regards
> Andreas
Thanks everybody. It looks like Microsoft's non-compliance to RFC
formats
is the real problem. Now I figure out a work-around solution to my
issue.
What I'm thinking is that I'll only use Outlook when communicating
with my
Boss, so to them, it appears like I'm in compliance. But when I'm
communicating
with others outside my company, I'll just use the ASCII segment of the
signature
and ignore the graphic add-on the boss wants.
And since there are no "signature" police checking outgoing mail,
nobody will
be the wiser. I'm just trying to stay on and use Mutt for as long as
possible.
I'm an old school previous (elm) user who converted to mutt in 1999
because of
the Y2K issues with elm.
Too bad there aren't any RFC police.
pbarg...@gmail.com
Mar 7, 2013, 8:00:26 PM3/7/13
to
So here's what eventually worked for me:
In .muttrc
macro compose y "<attach-file>~/someimage.png<enter><send-message>" "email with image attached"
Now if only I could get that to attach Inline - but I haven't figured out how to do that.
Hope this helps you
pbarg...@gmail.com
Mar 7, 2013, 9:04:31 PM3/7/13
to
However, I did find a promising tool to convert mutt text mail to html emails and attach html signatures. I haven't tested this yet.
.muttrc line making attachment Inline (ctr-d - \Cd)
macro compose y "<attach-file>~/someimage.png<enter>\Cd<send-message>" "email with image attached"
plainMail2HTML
http://sourceforge.net/projects/plain2html/
0 new messages