On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 07:41:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > It was suggested that I also post the mailers that were used > > in successfully sending a ballot to the voting engine, and here are > > the results. I am attaching both the list of good mailers, as well > > as the reasons for rejection of the ballot, with the MUA and count. > > > > I note that there were tweo succesful votes from people who > > use Outlook (and no rejections). > > > > Mutt still impresses. > > Speaking about Emacsen mailers, there are not enough details because > Emacsen usually use external packages (gpg.el, mailcrypt) to perform > encryption and signing. > > You wouldn't conclude that Gnus/Mew/whatever do not it right sometimes, > it wouldn't make sense.
And then, not all mutt users did the encryption in mutt. I for example simply did the encryption by hand, and mailed the resulting ballot. I could as well have used plain mail instead of mutt. Friendly, Sven Luther