[Mailman-Users] removing s/mime parts before distributing mail to list-members required?

Stefan Bauer via Mailman-Users writes: > More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with > that? To add to what Mark says, I would say not at all. I would consider broken S/MIME signatures to be a bug, because Mailman should be treating the multipart/signed *part* as a block,

Re: [Mailman-Users] removing s/mime parts before distributing mail to list-members required?

On 12/2/19 12:44 AM, Stefan Bauer via Mailman-Users wrote: > > More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with that? We do > not want to send out "broken" mails. What is best practice? This reply is signed. I don't think the sig will be broken. > Removing the s/mime part seems

[Mailman-Users] removing s/mime parts before distributing mail to list-members required?

Hi, thank you for mailman! More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with that? We do not want to send out "broken" mails. What is best practice? Removing the s/mime part seems right, but how to do that? pass_mime_types could help, but removing multipart (and