question regarding gnupg in my regular signature

[Andrew McDonald]

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: andrew@mcdonald.org.uk
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/

-- 
Archive is at http://lists.gnupg.org - Unsubscribe by sending mail
with a subject of  "unsubscribe"  to gnupg-users-request@gnupg.org