On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 14:26, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:49, Steven P. Auerbach wrote: > > I recently stated that GPG/PGP messages from myself were correctly > > decrypted in Evolution 1.2.1, but messages from others are not. A > > reply from vbi clarified the problem, pointing out that that stated > > that earlier versions had support for inline PGP, but that this has > > been dropped, because the related problem of reliably verifying inline > > signatures is not solvable. Most GPG-encrypted messages sent to me are > > inline, so dropping support for them makes Evolution basically > > unusable for reading GPG-encrypted messages. KMail handles such > > messages just fine, so I don't believe there is any fundamental issue. > > Hi again! > > There are no fundamental issues with inline encrypted messages - this > one is only the implementation problem of the MUA being required to scan > the message body.
actually, you are slightly wrong here. what's the content-type of the data that is in the encrypted blob? [snip] > > > I strongly suggest that support for inline GPG be restored, in some > > form. > > All this said, I agree with you: inline pgp should be supported. Thanks > to evolutions bad performance in interoperability with other mail > agents, I have actually much more PGP/MIME signed messages failing than > I have inline signed messages fail. For all the theoretical benefits of > MIME and the pitfalls of inline pgp usage, I find this really sad. apparently you aren't using a new enough evolution. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
