Re: [tlug] Followup on mutt and gpg

[bruno raoult <br@example.com>]

Cannot be sure, but with my EVO 1.0.7, I got no trash in any pgp
signature since the beginning of this thread. If you could send
me 2 mails (with both "standards") at br@example.com, to
confirm, this could be an answer to your question...

br.

On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 21:26, Ulrich Plate wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 03 September 2002 21:02, Josh Glover wrote:
> > Quoth Godwin Stewart (Tue 2002-09-03 11:39:59AM +0200):
> > > Therefore, I'm going to advocate standards compliancy once
> > > again and vote that we do PGP/MIME.
> >
> > May I have your children? ;)
> >
> > Seriously, your argument is dead-on the way I see it. The only way to force
> > standards compliance is if we refuse to accept solutions that do not
> > comply.
> 
> Cool. Now if all those who can afford to be righteous bastards could please 
> briefly point out to the more malleable sheep down here which mail client or 
> plugin to a mail client is capable of interpreting both standards correctly, 
> I'd be much obliged. Don't tell me there is none for Linux, apparently 
> there's even one for OS X (GPGMail, http://sente.epfl.ch/software/GPGMail/). 
> 
> Ulrich Plate
> PS: Oh, and additional S/MIME compliance would really make my day. :-) 
> - --> "You shouldn't have said that, you idiot! init 1 *now*, quick!!!"

-- 
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, 
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux."
                -- Anonymous

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part