Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #269312 > unrolled thread

Dovecot correct ownership for logs

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 00:50 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 19:30 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:20 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:30 +0200
                OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
                  Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 16:10 +0200
                    Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-14 17:00 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 17:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 21:00 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:30 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 19:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 19:50 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-14 20:00 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 20:20 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-05-14 20:40 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
                              Markup in mail messages (was: Re: OT: Top Posting) Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 04:20 +0200
                                Re: Markup in mail messages eben@gmx.us - 2024-05-15 05:40 +0200
                                Re: Markup in mail messages Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
                                  Re: Markup in mail messages David <curmudgeon@telaman.net.au> - 2024-05-15 20:50 +0200
                                  Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-16 15:30 +0200
                                    Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-16 15:50 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 16:00 +0200
                                        Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-17 21:30 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 23:20 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 05:40 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-18 07:50 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 19:00 +0200
                                      Re: Markup in mail messages Karl Vogel <vogelke@pobox.com> - 2024-05-17 05:50 +0200
                                        Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 07:50 +0200
                                          Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 13:20 +0200
                                            Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:30 +0200
                                              Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-18 15:50 +0200
                                    Re: Markup in mail messages Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2024-05-16 17:10 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 16:40 +0200
                            Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
                              Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 20:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-05-14 23:20 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 23:40 +0200
                      Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:50 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 16:10 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
                          Re: OT: Top Posting Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 18:10 +0200
                        Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-15 18:50 +0200
                    Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 20:50 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-05-14 17:40 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 17:50 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 06:40 +0200
      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> - 2024-05-14 14:10 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200
            Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:50 +0200
              Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:30 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:40 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
                    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
                Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 14:00 +0200
                  Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 13:10 +0200
                    Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 14:40 +0200
                      Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:20 +0200
                        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
                        Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
                          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:20 +0200
          Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#269353 — Re: OT: Top Posting

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:01:31PM +0000, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com wrote:
> how many times has this top post crap been dug up
> don't y'all have any thing better to do

It's never going to stop.  We have a clash of two cultures here.

The first culture are Unix users who grew up with Internet email and
Usenet news.  For people in this culture, there is a well-defined set
of "netiquette" rules -- plain text messages, inline quoting with "> "
citation characters, lines limited to ~72 characters, etc.

For users in this first group, email is often read and composed on a
terminal, or a terminal emulator.  Characters are displayed in a
fixed-width font.  ASCII art is possible, albeit frowned upon as
juvenile.

The second culture are Windows users who grew up with Microsoft products
in their school or workplace.  In this culture, top-posting is the norm,
and inline quoting is nigh impossible.  Messages are often sent in either
HTML or markdown format.  Whole paragraphs are presented as single lines.
Explicit line breaks are only used between paragraphs.

Users in this second group typically use Microsoft Outlook, or a
web-based mail user agent in a graphical environment.  Fonts are
variable-width, and any ASCII art or tables will not align properly.

Now, normally when these cultures clash, we're able to point to the
Debian netiquette guidelines, and move on.

In this particular instance, we've got a person from the second culture
who seems to have no idea that other cultures exist, or that a mailing
list might not adhere to their own expectations.  This person is acting
belligerantly, and will not listen to gentle reminders.

The best course of action in this case is to drop it, but pride can make
people do the wrong things sometimes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269354 — Re: OT: Top Posting

On 5/14/24 10:41 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> We have a clash of two cultures here.

More than just *nix vs. M$.

In business communications by email, the norm is to quote the *entire* 
thread, every time, without paring anything down, purely for the sake of 
CYA. As such, top-posting is the only reasonable alternative, given that 
recipients would otherwise have to scroll through hundreds, perhaps 
thousands of lines of quoted material to find a bottom-posted reply, or 
worse, *actually read* through all that quoted material to find an 
inline-posted reply.

In list-server communications (and to a lesser extent, BBS posts), the 
norm is to pare down quoted material to the barest minimum needed to 
provide context (originally to save bandwidth and storage, both of which 
are *still* finite resources), and to bottom-post or inline-post one's 
replies, in order to give them a more natural flow. CYA doesn't factor 
in at all.

--
JHHL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269355 — Re: OT: Top Posting

Greg Wooledge (12024-05-14):
> Usenet news.  For people in this culture, there is a well-defined set
> of "netiquette" rules -- plain text messages, inline quoting with "> "
> citation characters, lines limited to ~72 characters, etc.

I slightly disagree with this wording: you make it sound like we follow
the rules just because they are there. Not so: we follow the rules
because they make sense, because they make conversations more fluid:

- Limiting to 72 characters was good because a lot of terminals were 80
  columns, and it is still good because longer lines are hard to read
  but mail software still is not smart enough to rewrap text by the mile
  but not code.

- Trimmed interleaved quoting presents to the reader the exact
  information they need in the order they need it to understand the
  reply and what it is about.

In summary, the hackers culture expects the sender to spend a little
effort into making the mail easy to read for the recipient(s) while the
culture of the general population expects the sender to make as little
effort as possible and the recipient(s) to bear the burden that the
software in between cannot take, i.e. most of it.

And the “(s)” tells us which culture is more efficient and why.

> The second culture are Windows users who grew up with Microsoft products
> in their school or workplace.  In this culture, top-posting is the norm,
> and inline quoting is nigh impossible.  Messages are often sent in either
> HTML or markdown format.

Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.

> The best course of action in this case is to drop it

Indeed. But we can still discuss cultural issues relevant to
mailing-lists around it.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269357 — Re: OT: Top Posting

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

well, speaking personally, I can respect both sides.
I use a screen reader.  Having to wade through loads of text, for a 
conversational  flow, especially when not edited is far from productive 
for me personally.
it is much better to have a top post, for me personally, because I have no 
issues  reading below..if needful.
I can only imagine what it is like for folks on small screens, having to 
translate from English etc.
Do I understand the conversation idea?
absolutely.
Do I also realize that if the thread is not edited the conversation is 
less fluid and more a lake of mud?

Absolutely as well.
Karen



On Tue, 14 May 2024, Nicolas George wrote:

> Greg Wooledge (12024-05-14):
>> Usenet news.  For people in this culture, there is a well-defined set
>> of "netiquette" rules -- plain text messages, inline quoting with "> "
>> citation characters, lines limited to ~72 characters, etc.
>
> I slightly disagree with this wording: you make it sound like we follow
> the rules just because they are there. Not so: we follow the rules
> because they make sense, because they make conversations more fluid:
>
> - Limiting to 72 characters was good because a lot of terminals were 80
>  columns, and it is still good because longer lines are hard to read
>  but mail software still is not smart enough to rewrap text by the mile
>  but not code.
>
> - Trimmed interleaved quoting presents to the reader the exact
>  information they need in the order they need it to understand the
>  reply and what it is about.
>
> In summary, the hackers culture expects the sender to spend a little
> effort into making the mail easy to read for the recipient(s) while the
> culture of the general population expects the sender to make as little
> effort as possible and the recipient(s) to bear the burden that the
> software in between cannot take, i.e. most of it.
>
> And the “(s)” tells us which culture is more efficient and why.
>
>> The second culture are Windows users who grew up with Microsoft products
>> in their school or workplace.  In this culture, top-posting is the norm,
>> and inline quoting is nigh impossible.  Messages are often sent in either
>> HTML or markdown format.
>
> Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
>
>> The best course of action in this case is to drop it
>
> Indeed. But we can still discuss cultural issues relevant to
> mailing-lists around it.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>  Nicolas George
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269360 — Re: OT: Top Posting

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.

I can't be sure where they're coming from exactly, but every once in
a while I see messages on debian-user, bug-bash or help-bash which
have extra asterisk characters scattered throughout them (usually
make the code samples break).  The only sensible interpretation I can
come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.

When reading the message with the idea that "this might be markdown
text" in mind, it's possible to guess, in most cases, which asterisks
should be removed to render the code samples or terminal session pastes
correct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269368 — Markup in mail messages (was: Re: OT: Top Posting)

On 15/05/2024 02:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
[...]
> The only sensible interpretation I can
> come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
> placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.

*Bold*, /italics/, and _underlined_ markup is supported by various
mailers, e.g. Thunderbird and Gnus. Some render superscripts^1 and
subscripts_2 as well.

Backticks (`echo $PATH`) are more specific to markdown. However
sometimes I use them not expecting that the message will be rendered as
markdown. Just to avoid ambiguity where a piece of code starts and ends.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269369 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On 5/14/24 22:17, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 02:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
> [...]
>> The only sensible interpretation I can
>> come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
>> placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.
>
> *Bold*, /italics/, and _underlined_ markup is supported by various
> mailers, e.g. Thunderbird and Gnus. Some render superscripts^1 and
> subscripts_2 as well.
>
> Backticks (`echo $PATH`) are more specific to markdown. However
> sometimes I use them not expecting that the message will be rendered as
> markdown. Just to avoid ambiguity where a piece of code starts and ends.

If your mail path is sufficiently modern, you might be able to use Unicode
subscripts₁ and superscripts².  But, they're kind of a pain to type for >1
character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269384 — Re: Markup in mail messages

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 15/05/2024 03:17, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 02:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
> [...]
>> The only sensible interpretation I can
>> come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
>> placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.
>
> *Bold*, /italics/, and _underlined_ markup is supported by various
> mailers, e.g. Thunderbird and Gnus. Some render superscripts^1 and
> subscripts_2 as well.
>
> Backticks (`echo $PATH`) are more specific to markdown. However
> sometimes I use them not expecting that the message will be rendered as
> markdown. Just to avoid ambiguity where a piece of code starts and ends.
>
When this sort of subject comes up (as it does, every so often), I 
wonder why `text/markdown` isn't offered as a mime type for sending 
emails. If you're an MUA and you're going to parse text/plain for 
markup, then why not offer text/markdown as the body of the message? I 
know that there have been various attempts to bridge the gap between 
"text/plain is too basic" and "text/html is too powerful" such as 
text/enriched and text/rtf, but Markdown seems to be hitting a sweet 
spot of being easy to write and being widely adopted elsewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269389 — Re: Markup in mail messages

	On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 15:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 03:17, Max Nikulin wrote:
> 																																																
> > On 15/05/2024 02:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
> > > 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > The only sensible interpretation I can
> > > come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
> > > placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.
> > 
> > 
> > *Bold*, /italics/, and _underlined_ markup is supported by various
> > mailers, e.g. Thunderbird and Gnus. Some render superscripts^1 and
> > subscripts_2 as well.
> > 
> > Backticks (`echo $PATH`) are more specific to markdown. However
> > sometimes I use them not expecting that the message will be rendered as
> > markdown. Just to avoid ambiguity where a piece of code starts and ends.
> >
> 
> When this sort of subject comes up (as it does, every so often), I  
> wonder why `text/markdown` isn't offered as a mime type for sending  
> emails. If you're an MUA and you're going to parse text/plain for  
> markup, then why not offer text/markdown as the body of the message? I  
> know that there have been various attempts to bridge the gap between  
> "text/plain is too basic" and "text/html is too powerful" such as  
> text/enriched and text/rtf, but Markdown seems to be hitting a sweet  
> spot of being easy to write and being widely adopted elsewhere.

Evolution delivers on a markdown option.\
Cheers!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269398 — Re: Markup in mail messages

> When this sort of subject comes up (as it does, every so often), I wonder
> why `text/markdown` isn't offered as a mime type for sending emails.

FWIW, last time I tried to send `text/(x-)markdown` messages,
I discovered that many "popular" MUAs do not display those at all (they
treat them as attachments, for example), contrary to what the RFCs say
they SHOULD do.  🙁

So, yes, I encourage you to send more of those, and if your recipients
don't like the result, try and get them to complain to their
MUA's authors (most of those MUAs are of course proprietary and are not
very ... responsive, but that's all we can do).

The stupidest case I bumped into is Github where replying by `plain/text`
email lets you add comments to an issue, but `text/markdown` replies are
simply sent to `/dev/null` even though Markdown is the standard format
they use in the web interface.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269399 — Re: Markup in mail messages

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

[...]

> So, yes, I encourage you to send more of those, and if your recipients
> don't like the result, try and get them to complain to their
> MUA's authors (most of those MUAs are of course proprietary and are not
> very ... responsive, but that's all we can do).

Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
> 
> The stupidest case I bumped into is Github where replying by `plain/text`
> email lets you add comments to an issue, but `text/markdown` replies are
> simply sent to `/dev/null` even though Markdown is the standard format
> they use in the web interface.

What'd you expect from Microsoft? -- Excelllllence!1!!

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269400 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 03:47:48PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:28:05AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > So, yes, I encourage you to send more of those, and if your recipients
> > don't like the result, try and get them to complain to their
> > MUA's authors (most of those MUAs are of course proprietary and are not
> > very ... responsive, but that's all we can do).
> 
> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
> > 
[...]
Please don't settle for markdown. I would love a org filter!
org-mode just handles tabular data admirably :)

-H 





-- 
Henning Follmann           | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269432 — Re: Markup in mail messages

>> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
>> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
>> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
> Please don't settle for markdown. I would love a org filter!
> org-mode just handles tabular data admirably :)

Just beware that Org's code is generally written under the implicit
assumption that the Org document is trusted, so if you try to reuse
parts of Org's code to do the rendering be extra mindful of the
potential for security holes.
[ This applies to many other ELisp packages, of course; it's not
  exclusive to Org.  ]


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269439 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:25:49PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
> >> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
> >> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
> > Please don't settle for markdown. I would love a org filter!
> > org-mode just handles tabular data admirably :)
> 
> Just beware that Org's code is generally written under the implicit
> assumption that the Org document is trusted, so if you try to reuse
> parts of Org's code to do the rendering be extra mindful of the
> potential for security holes.
> [ This applies to many other ELisp packages, of course; it's not
>   exclusive to Org.  ]
> 

Very true,
but most content is unsafe like office (MS and open), PDF any other than
PDF-A. And HTML which can include JS.
org-mode can execute also other code than lisp, like python, JS, Lua

A filter though could be limited to only create safe org markup.

-H


-- 
Henning Follmann           | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269445 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On 18/05/2024 02:25, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
>>> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
>>> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
>> Please don't settle for markdown. I would love a org filter!
>> org-mode just handles tabular data admirably 🙂
> 
> Just beware that Org's code is generally written under the implicit
> assumption that the Org document is trusted, so if you try to reuse
> parts of Org's code to do the rendering be extra mindful of the
> potential for security holes.

Leaving aside that in bookworm emacs has not got an update fixing a 
serious security issue, do you have an example of HTML to Org converter 
that may generate unsafe markup?

Specifically to tables, I do not like that arbitrary code may be 
executed in response to TAB or C-c C-c. However I am unsure if formulas 
may appear in an Org file converted from HTML.

emacs-orgmode. Re: [BUG][Security] begin_src :var evaluated before the 
prompt to confirm execution. Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:11:18 +0700.
https://list.orgmode.org/tjfkp7$ggm$1@ciao.gmane.io

> [ This applies to many other ELisp packages, of course; it's not
>    exclusive to Org.  ]

Yesterday reading bug reports and emacs-devel threads related to 
emacsclient-mail.desktop, I noticed the following:
> IMHO we should stop kow-towing to the information security people who
> make a huge fuss over every single bug, especially bugs like this one
> which only show up when you specifically try to trigger them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269446 — Re: Markup in mail messages

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:25:49PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
> >> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
> >> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.
> > Please don't settle for markdown. I would love a org filter!
> > org-mode just handles tabular data admirably :)
> 
> Just beware that Org's code is generally written under the implicit
> assumption that the Org document is trusted, so if you try to reuse
> parts of Org's code to do the rendering be extra mindful of the
> potential for security holes.

My tip of the hat towards Org was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The
problem I actually see with Org (and with Markdown, to a lesser
extent) is that they are pretty ad-hocish and tinker friendly.

Which is a *big* plus on the one hand.

On the other, though, once you want to formalize the thing (a
prerequisite to be able to even start talking about security),
a myriad of dialects has evolved.

Then you either need a dictatorship (Github aka Microsoft, cf.
"github flavoured Markdown") or you have a long and painful
process (Org is trying, currently).

The upside of Org and Markdown is that you (currently, at least)
don't need a special reader to make sense of them.

But (that's the fourth or fifth hand?) if you follow the evolution
of HTML, back then (TM) you didn't need a special reader either.
Looking at the crud generated by e.g. "modern" Microsoft mailers,
though...

There's room for information technology sociologists here :)

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269408 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On 16/05/2024 20:47, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.

I am not familiar with pandoc features enough to reason if it is safe 
from security point of view.

for i in org markdown commonmark gfm ; do
     printf '<strong>Bold %s</strong>' "$i" | pandoc -f html -t "$i" ;
done

*Bold org*
**Bold markdown**
**Bold commonmark**
**Bold gfm**

I believed that some text browser should render HTML well enough to make 
messages readable in terminal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269412 — Re: Markup in mail messages

>> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:48:23AM -0400, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Actually I've been tempted to teach my mail reader to transform HTML
> into some lightweight markup (yeah, you need a bit of heuristics for
> that ;-) -- say Org, but why not its poor sister Markdown.

  https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text/ might interest you.  It converts
  (relatively) sane HTML into Markdown.

  I put html2text.py into $HOME/lib and use this to call it:

    #!/bin/sh
    #<html2mkd: convert reasonable HTML to Markdown
    exec /usr/bin/env python $HOME/lib/html2text.py ${1+"$@"}
    exit 1

-- 
Karl Vogel                      I don't speak for anyone but myself

Getting old has advantages.  I can hide my own Easter Eggs, and young
ladies giggle when I give someone the finger.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269416 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On 17/05/2024 10:16, Karl Vogel wrote:
>    https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text/ might interest you.  It converts
>    (relatively) sane HTML into Markdown.
> 
>    I put html2text.py into $HOME/lib and use this to call it:
> 
>      #!/bin/sh
>      #<html2mkd: convert reasonable HTML to Markdown
>      exec /usr/bin/env python $HOME/lib/html2text.py ${1+"$@"}
>      exit 1

I am puzzled by this wrapper. I expect that "$@" is enough here and 
namely {1+"$@"} is redundant. Am I wrong?

Another question is what is advantage of a decade old Python-2 script 
over the python3-html2text Debian package built (almost certainly) from 
its successor:
<https://alir3z4.github.io/html2text>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269423 — Re: Markup in mail messages

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:43:49PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 10:16, Karl Vogel wrote:
> >    https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text/ might interest you.  It converts
> >    (relatively) sane HTML into Markdown.
> > 
> >    I put html2text.py into $HOME/lib and use this to call it:
> > 
> >      #!/bin/sh
> >      #<html2mkd: convert reasonable HTML to Markdown
> >      exec /usr/bin/env python $HOME/lib/html2text.py ${1+"$@"}
> >      exit 1
> 
> I am puzzled by this wrapper. I expect that "$@" is enough here and namely
> {1+"$@"} is redundant. Am I wrong?

https://mywiki.wooledge.org/WrapperScript

Short version: "$@" is good enough if your /bin/sh isn't museum-era.
${1+"$@"} works around a bug in some very old shells.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web