Unidentified subject!

J Horacio MG Horacio <homega@ciberia.es>
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:26:18 +0200

El lun, 04 de oct de 1999, a las 06:39:43 +0200, Karsten Patzwaldt dijo:

> Other people like to use pine and pgp4pine, and there are a hell lot of
> people who like this. The good thing - or, for the mutt user, the bad
> thing - about this is that it doesn't use OpenPGP's MIME-types, and thus
> you have no problems with reading the messages with any MUA (Outlook for
> example has problems with OpenPGP).
Well, this thread is starting to need a redirection to a MUAs mailing list, but since we are here: While Pine (and others) does not use PGP/MIME standards either for signing or encrypting, Mutt can perfectly deal with application/pgp both ways: receiving and sending ... though you'll need a bit of help (procmail) for receiving pgp/application signed mail.
> Maybe you look at the "X-Mailer:"-headers in this list, in my archive,
> mutt is the leading MUA, followed by ELM, Emacs, XFMail and XCmail.
> Wondering why pine is not in the list...
Not sure, but may be the fact that Pine don't usually put a header announcing itself... Regards, -- Horacio homega@ciberia.es Valencia - ESPAŅA