[Fw: [OT] Content-Disposition: inline?]

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 10:51:30AM -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> I originally posted this to the mutt-users list.  Can anyone on
> gnupg-users shed some light on this?  Is this a known problem? 

> -- 
> | Justin R. Miller / justin@solidlinux.com / 0xC9C40C31
> | Of all the things I've lost, I miss my pants the most.
> ----------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:06:23 -0400
> From: "Justin R. Miller" <justin@solidlinux.com>
> To: Mutt Users List <mutt-users@mutt.org>
> Subject: [OT] Content-Disposition: inline?
> Mail-Followup-To: Mutt Users List <mutt-users@mutt.org>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i
> X-PGP-Key: http://solidlinux.com/~justin/pubkey.asc

> I've looked around a bit on several mailing list archives, but I can't
> seem to figure out what's causing this specific problem, though I think
> I've narrowed it down.  Any help would be appreciated.  I doubt it's a
> Mutt problem, but I'd like to learn what the deal is either way and this
> list has the kind of people who tend to know this stuff :->

> I send my mail with Mutt and I always sign it with GnuPG.  That results
> in the message going out as two (or more) parts -- the message, and the
> signature.  Both have a 'Content-Disposition: inline' header, which I
> take it means that the MUA is supposed to display the attachment inline,
> since both are of type text/plain.  

	That's funny...  I use Mutt (1.3.20 currently) with gpg (1.0.6
with ldap patch currently) and I never have signed messages come out
as multipart Mime.  I get one part and it's signed inline.  Mutt sends
it and recognizes it.  Do your messages go out as Mime when not signed?
(Mine do not, so that maybe why I don't see this effect).

	Do you need to use Mime?  Is there any problem with using clearsign
signatures on the message itself?

> Anyway, I just got a mail from a user on a rather low-tech mailing list
> complaining that all of my mail comes up blank with two attachments --
> the two parts mentioned above.  She's using:

> 	X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300

> I'll bet my life savings on which one of us has the real problem :-D
> Regardless, I was wondering if anyone would be able to confirm for me
> what exactly that is?  

	What happens if the message goes out as a text message with a
clear-sign signature in the text itself?

	On a semi-related (backwards tangential) note, in trying to help
another user sign his E-Mail in LookOut with PGP (7.x from PGP) I was having
him send me signed messages.  In his case, he was telling LookOut to "sign
on send" and sometimes the signatures would be good and sometimes they
would be bad.  I discovered that the bad ones had a trademark SYMBOL
in the message and, sometime between when the signature was made to
when I received it, the trademark had been converted to a (tm).  So
much for the value of THAT signature.  Since this went from OutLook
to Exchange to Linux SMTP server to imaps to mutt, I guess I can tell
you where the list of suspects for that act of terrorism is...  That
gets added to the Windows tricks with intelligent (they lied) smart
quotes and other stupid Windows tricks.

	Now...  That has nothing DIRECTLY to do with gnupg, since the
bug is either in PGP or LookOut (or possibly Exchange).  I bring this
up for people working on Windows pluggins as something to watch out for.

> Thanks in advance!  

> -- 
> | Justin R. Miller / justin@solidlinux.com / 0xC9C40C31
> | Of all the things I've lost, I miss my pants the most.
> ----------------------------------------------------------

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw@WittsEnd.com
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!