On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 22:39, Thomas O'Dowd wrote: > > Evolution currently has problems verifying inline PGP signed messages > from mailers when they are qp'd by a gateway along the way. Mutt doesn't > have that problem so I'm suggesting being liberal (as it is inline pgp > anyway) and unencode first then verify which is what other mailers seem to do.
We *do* decode the text before trying to verify the signature. > > With regards to sending 8bit signed inline pgp emails, I haven't tested > what is the best thing to do yet, but it looks like sign and then qp > is what will work with most email clients. I'm sure there are loads > of people who'll appreciate it if we get this working with the big > email clients. I don't have direct access to other windows clients but > I'll hand create some test emails to friends and see what works. Based on the fact that you thought evolution *didn't* decode the text before verifying, when it actually does - I assume that the correct way is actually the opposite of what you say ;-) here we are again at the "who's right and who's wrong?" argument. It's a guessing game, like I already said. And you can never win guessing games. Period. If you want this feature, send me a patch. This way if it doesn't always work, no one can point the finger at me. I don't want to deal with it. PGP/MIME has gotten enough complaints because other mailers didn't do *it* right, do you really think that they can all get in-line pgp right if they can't get PGP/MIME right? Didn't think so. I declare this the end of the thread, any further emails will be redirected to /dev/null Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
