Are .ems attachments necessary?

[Thomas Spuhler]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 17:47, Todd wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> W. D. wrote:
> > I just joined this group a few days ago, and am finding that some of
> > the email messages are contained in .ems attachments.  I don't
> > understand why this is necessary.  Can't the text be put in the body
> > of email?
> 
> Those message do contain text/plain message bodies.  Your MUA is
> simply not displaying them as such because it does not support the
> PGP/MIME RFCs, 2015 and 3156, the latter of which supersedes the
> former.  AFAIK, there is a PGP plugin available that will allow you to
> read and verify these messages, though I have not used Eudora (or
> windows for that matter) since the 3.0 or maybe 4.0 days, so my memory
> could be shoddy here.
> 
> > To me these .ems attachments add a whole level of unnecessary
> > complication to the situation.
> 
> And to others they alleviate many common problems with inline
> signatures.  It's a matter of preferences.  It's been discussed to
> death.  Take a look through the archives and search the net for
> PGP/MIME and you'll have hours of fun reading.
> 
> > Also, I've found that emails from "Alfred M. Szmidt" crash Eudora
> > 5.1, so I've had to set up a filter to trash those emails rather
> > than having to reboot each time Eudora brings Windows down.  (Yes, I
> > know Windows is crappy.  I have several other computers running
> > FreeBSD, & Linux)
> 
> It sounds like a bug in Eudora to me.  You might want to check if
> there's a newer version available.  I know that there are 6.0 versions
> of Eudora that have been out for some time.  If upgrading to that
> isn't an option, maybe there's a more recent 5.x series that fixes
> the bug.
> 
> > Can anyone explain why these .ems attachments are required?
> 
> Required isn't the right word.  PGP/MIME is preferred by some users.
> Some MUA's simply don't support sending the old inline style of
> signatures, Evolution is the only one I can think of at the moment,
> but there may be others.  I think a decent MUA will be liberal in what
> it accepts, meaning that neither inline signatures nor PGP/MIME will
> cause the user problems.

I am actually an Evo user. What attachments or problems are we talking
about? I don't see any .ems attachments.
Of course the inline signature is in plain text, but..


> 
> - -- 
> Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
> ======================================================================
> I would have made a good Pope.
>     -- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: When crypto is outlawed bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
> 
> iD8DBQFAIuQ3uv+09NZUB1oRApF9AJ9KvnNdjvKj2MFj4GLAMER3OBvgIACgyhGI
> LI8B7m5uTrzF3KRHgrRwi90=
> =oza1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040206/b249758e/attachment.bin