question regarding gnupg in my regular signature

Andrew McDonald
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:10:17 +0000

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:16:46PM +0000, Graham wrote:

> 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.
PGP/MIME has advantages over the older application/pgp format, and it would be nice to see it supported by all the mailers that offer "pgp support". The pgp/mime standard in rfc2015 is 4 years old, and lots of MUAs seem to support S/MIME. :) RFC 2440, does after all say: "An application that implements OpenPGP for messaging SHOULD implement OpenPGP-MIME." (See RFC2119 for the meaning of 'SHOULD'). "broken mailers" really referred to Microsoft Outlook, which I get annoyed with for many reasons (and, yes, I do use it at work :( ). That particular comment in my .muttrc came about after getting frustrated trying to send a message to an Outlook user that they could easily decrypt/verify. This process involved PGP/MIME, then application/pgp and finally this macro which implements application/pgp-but-the-content-type-says-text/plain. This, however, is probably due to problems trying to plug PGP support into Outlook. :-) By terming my macros "a bit of a cludge". I meant that mutt's PGP/MIME support was so nice, easy and clean to use; using these macros seem very horrible in comparison. :( Andrew -- Andrew McDonald E-mail: -- Archive is at - Unsubscribe by sending mail with a subject of "unsubscribe" to