question regarding gnupg in my regular signature

Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:16:46 GMT

Hash: SHA1

Hi there, Andrew McDonald,

On 13 December 2000, I received the following message from you regarding
"question regarding gnupg in my regular signature"


AM> These work, but are a bit of a cludge compared to mutt's proper PGP
AM> support. 


This implies Mutt invokes PGP "properly" by PGP/MIME and earlier in
your posting you referred to "broken mailers" that clearsigned text.

Under Linux, the de facto standard *may* be the way in which Mutt
defaults for the use of PGP, but in Windows most PGP compliant MUAs
*do not* default to PGP/MIME and neither PGP nor GnuPG have any
inherant PGP/MIME capability.  So what might be "proper" in one
environment certainly is not necessarily "proper" in another.

I grant you that *if* you are going to send a message from one
environment by PGP/MIME that message must be able to be verified and
decrypted in another environment, or it will be applications under
each OS talking to themselves.  There is a standard, RFC2015, but
under Windows there are only one or two MUAs to my knowledge which
support this.

For this reason it is better to clearsign messages to overcome this. 

Graham                  reply to:

Please PGP/GnuPG sign mail for verification and encrypt for internet security

Written on 13 December 2000 23:06:27
Version: PGPB2 version 0.01.3


Archive is at - Unsubscribe by sending mail
with a subject of  "unsubscribe"  to