The determination of what is and what isn't an attachment is a lot harder than it first seems. For example, a multipart/related message containing jpeg images shouldn't be considered attachments since they should be referenced by the html. Although if the multipart/related html is broken then they will be shown as attachments anyway - it is far too complex to have to parse the whole message and all of its possibilities just for a little flag. So it should only be considered a hint.Le mercredi 17 novembre 2004 à 12:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit : > correctness of the signature has nothing to do with the presence of the > paperclip icon in the message-list. That I would expect, I also thought it was weird :-)
AFAIK its better than it was at least. IMAP vs local mail uses a separate block of code though so the algorithm might not match exactly.
> I believe that local mail won't show a paperclip if the message is a > multipart/signed, while imap is bugged and shows a paperclip icon for > multipart/signed messages. Weird... I currently view your mail in a local mailbox (from POP3) and no paperclip shows up. I moved it on my IMAP dir and it is still ok.
While yours only has (header): Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
Yes, this is just 's/mime', the other is gpg.
--
|
<<attachment: zed-48.small.jpg>>
