Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by totony on Monday September 07, 2015 @05:06PM
(#10183056)
You can use mutt with Exchange servers and Gmail servers
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by asdfkajh2 on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @12:16AM
(#10184096)
I think the idea is that a security professional should use, on a regular basis, multiple email clients.
It's a funny trick of the english language that when we say someone uses an email client, it comes across as an exclusive use. We need an explicit patch.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Monday September 07, 2015 @10:52PM
(#10183969)
Do you wind up with plaintext emails that look gross when opened in Outlook?
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @01:36AM
(#10184236)
It is HTML emails that are gross, not plain text.
Not necessarily for the Outlook users. The default setting of my Outlook was to ignore double line breaks and (paragraphs), which makes plain text mails less readable.
Same for me, I cannot think of the use case for this - maybe it was introduced in the embrace/extend/extinguish era to nudge people into using Rich Text format emails?
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @07:21AM
(#10185006)
It is Outlook that is gross.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @09:48AM
(#10185623)
Unfortunately, sometimes in the real world we don't all get to always choose our own tools.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by insertnickname on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @10:50AM
(#10186000)
Sure, but you still shouldn't blame plain text for Outlook's failures.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @07:43PM
(#10188848)
I didn't lay blame at all. I just asked: "Do you wind up with plaintext emails that look gross when opened in Outlook?"
My presumption, based on your defensiveness/evasiveness, is that the answer is "yes."
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by monochromatic on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @09:48AM
(#10185620)
Fine, but Outlook does not make plain text emails look nice.
Mutt and Exchange? Bliss! Would you happen to have a doc link handy?
Mutt doesn't support retrieving mail very well, but you can use sync programs (getmail, offlineimap, isync, exchange2mbox) to create local mailboxes and make mutt use the local mailbox directory instead.
you can send email using external programs (local smtp server and openxchange for exchange).
Mutt is not a traditional mail client, it is more of a glue between multiple programs so you can have one interface for all of your emails need.
If Mutt is not a traditional mail client, then what is? heirloom-mailx?
I read my mail with less. That's a nontraditional mail client.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by keithpeter on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @05:36AM
(#10184748)
"I read my mail with less."
How? Sounds like you just grep your way through the mailbox?
Yes.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by mikekchar on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @02:53AM
(#10184366)
When I first started in the industry my colleagues told me that I should be using the read-mail program. It has a mode that allows you to use regexps to read your mail really fast. I was told that the normal way to run read-mail with the "really fast" mode was:
rm -rf *
Disclaimer: For the Unix impaired, this is an "expert only" utility. I am not responsible for the loss of all the files in your home directory should you attempt to use it.
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by dredmorbius on Tuesday September 08, 2015 @03:24AM
(#10184416)
Do NOT suggest people try a command which will recursively remove all files ignoring file permissions. Most people will be aware of the hazard. Those who aren't will suffer irreparable harm.
Be careful with which Exchange servers you try offlineimap with. There was a severely bad interaction in Exchange with how offlineimap operates. Exchange used a global database with a small limit (I want to say 2^16) for unique message headers. Offlineimap injected unique headers for synchronization purposes. This quickly led to resource exhaustion and essentially blocked the server.
each email is supposed to have a globally unique Message-Id header, offlineimap or not.
No, this was a unique header name, X-offlineimap-????; not a value. My understanding is the DB table was a list of unique header names.
I'm not sure about builtin support but there is always davmail (http://davmail.sourceforge.net/) for exchange
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by mschuster91 on Monday September 07, 2015 @05:43PM
(#10183198)
IIRC Exchange does offer IMAP and SMTP...
Re:Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt
by stephengillie on Monday September 07, 2015 @06:04PM
(#10183267)
Exchange has supported IMAP, MAPI, POP, and SMTP for at least a decade.
In large implementations (such as Exchange Online in Office365) they may not support some of those services. IMAP can be very resource intensive and bog down a CAS or storage server.