Re: [tlug] Followup on mutt and gpg

[Scott Robbins <scottro@example.com>]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 07:56:28AM -0400, Josh Glover wrote:
> 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 :-)

Ok, one last test.  This is from a box with the patch installed, but the
line in .muttrc commented out (the line pgp_create_traditional)

I found that if I comment out this line, it will send pgp sigs to OE as
an attachment. So, now I'd like to see if you Sylpheed and other
standards compliant folks see my sig here correctly, or still broken as
it was last night.  

Thanks and apologies for the imposition
>



-- 
Scott

GPG Key EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2  A409 FA54 D575 EB34 67D6)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

Giles: In order...to be worthy...you must perform the
ritual...in a tutu. Pillock!
Angel: All right, someone get the chain saw.

Attachment: pgp00025.pgp
Description: PGP signature