application/pgp RFC

Thomas Roessler roessler at
Mon Sep 4 14:49:17 CEST 2000

On 2000-09-02 05:11:28 +0800, Nathan Thompson-Amato wrote:

> But is it worth implementing?  RFC 2015 seems to provide
> equivalent functionality, it's an actual RFC, and (this is the
> important one) it's already implemented in my favorite client
> :-).  Are there plans to update mutt and elm to support RFC 2015?

RFC 2015 and mutt have the same original author, Michael Elkins. So,
yes, mutt does support RFC 2015, and I believe it was even (one of?)
the first MUAs to do so.

That RFC 2015 is superior to application/pgp doesn't need to be
debated, it's pretty obvious.

> Do any other major email clients use application/pgp?  If mutt
> and elm are the only throwbacks, I'd much rather help update them
> than backdate Evolution.

The one reason to do application/pgp is that PGP/MIME support is
poor in the Windows and Macintosh worlds.

application/pgp is something most of the MUAs there can sort of cope
with, which is why I implemented the sending end of it with mutt.

Thomas Roessler                         <roessler at>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list