Re: [tlug] Followup on mutt and gpg

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

Quoth Jonathan Byrne (Tue 2002-09-03 01:00:11PM +0900):
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:22:21PM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> 
> >Not sure if anyone is interested, but I did a bit more experimenting for
> >my own curiosity.  The patch to enable an OE client to read a mutt gpg
> >signed email without it being considered an attachment is here:
> 
> OK, question:  If, as Josh notes, this is not an "issue" but just Mutt
> being compliant with RFC 3156 and the problem is OE's for not being
> so, is the end result of this patch then to make Mutt stop being
> compliant with RFC 3156?

The way I read the RFC, signatures are supposed to live in their own
MIME part. So yes, this patch makes Mutt ignore the standard when signing
or encrypting mail.

> Since the problem is really OE's, I ain't patching :-)

My position exactly. Luckily, we can afford to be such righteous bastards.


-- 
Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>

Associate Systems Administrator
INCOGEN, Inc.
http://www.incogen.com/

GPG keyID 0x62386967 (7479 1A7A 46E6 041D 67AE  2546 A867 DBB1 6238 6967)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 62386967

Attachment: pgp00022.pgp
Description: PGP signature