question regarding gnupg in my regular signature

Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:36:33 GMT

Hash: SHA1

Hi there, Andrew McDonald,

On 14 December 2000, I received the following message from you regarding
"question regarding gnupg in my regular signature"

AM> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:16:46PM +0000, Graham wrote:
AM> > AM> These work, but are a bit of a cludge compared to mutt's proper PGP
AM> > AM> support.
AM> > This implies Mutt invokes PGP "properly" by PGP/MIME and earlier in
AM> > your posting you referred to "broken mailers" that clearsigned text.
AM> PGP/MIME has advantages over the older application/pgp format, and it
AM> would be nice to see it supported by all the mailers that offer "pgp
AM> support". The pgp/mime standard in rfc2015 is 4 years old, and lots of
AM> MUAs seem to support S/MIME. :)
AM> RFC 2440, does after all say: "An application that implements OpenPGP
AM> for messaging SHOULD implement OpenPGP-MIME." (See RFC2119 for the
AM> meaning of 'SHOULD').

You're probably right, but specifically what advantages?

AM> "broken mailers" really referred to Microsoft Outlook, which I get
AM> annoyed with for many reasons (and, yes, I do use it at work :( ). 

Same here!

AM> particular comment in my .muttrc came about after getting frustrated
AM> trying to send a message to an Outlook user that they could easily
AM> decrypt/verify. This process involved PGP/MIME, then application/pgp
AM> and finally this macro which implements
AM> application/pgp-but-the-content-type-says-text/plain. This, however, is
AM> probably due to problems trying to plug PGP support into Outlook. :-)

PGP has a plug-in which integrates more seamlessly with Outlook than
Eudora or Outlook Express.  The problem I would think is that you're
trying to get a MUA (Mutt) which defaults to PGP/MIME under Linux, to
produce something which can be understood by a Windows application
(Outlook) for which there is no PGP/MIME support.  Despite somebody
telling me that this difference is not an OS problem, but an
application problem, most Windows MUAs do not have PGP/MIME support if
they have PGP.

AM> By terming my macros "a bit of a cludge". I meant that mutt's PGP/MIME
AM> support was so nice, easy and clean to use; using these macros seem
AM> very horrible in comparison. :(

I understand that, but for we Windows users, PGP/MIME seems so
unwieldy, so non-standard, and suspicious as we try to avoid
attachments....  Its just your point of view....

Graham                  reply to:

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

Written on 14 December 2000 19:26:42
Version: PGPB2 version 0.01.3


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