On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 03:22:07PM -0700, rex wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree. I was thinking of encryption, which has always worked
> well for me.
And, again, it works great for me when communicating with people using
modern mail clients. (Again, think of the pain in the ass life was when
Elm was the best Unix mail client around and people kept sending MIME'd
stuff instead of uuencoded, the old non-standard-but-works-for-me
method.)
> But I don't understand this. The signature is just part of the message
> and doesn't interfere with reading the signed part of the message
> at all, IME.
The signature isn't part of the message, though.
> After procmail is used to fix up the message, yes. BTW, I was reading
> about RFC 2015 and the opinion was expressed that it probably would
> NOT become a standard due to some issues that I don't remember. You're
> in a much better position to evaluate this than I am.
The main issue I'm aware of is that it dealt primarily with RSA. From
the IMC:
RFC 2015 is a Proposed Standard in
the IETF, but it is not expected to move forwards because it relies on
RFC 1991, which requires the use of RSA key exchange, and requires the
use of IDEA encryption, both of which are encumbered by patents. Both
of these patents would likely prevent the protocol from moving
forwards as an IETF standard.
With the advent of OpenPGP, that complaint is irrelevant (and IMC really
should update their web page to state that).
It has precisely nothing to do with the specification of 2015, just that
the IETF dislikes patents as standards.
RFC2015 works fine with RFC2440, so the encumberance of 1991 is
irrelevant.
> > Note, BTW, that PGP 6.5.1 seems to have some code to handle
> > PGP/MIME. At least I recall to have seen options referring to this
> > in some examples. You may wish to further investigate this.
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look. However, almost all of my PGP needs require
> the traditional format and there is nothing I can do to change that
> as I have no control over the other end of the link. I think it's
> unfortunate that the Mutt developers haven't recognized that this
> is a common situation and allowed for it as an option instead of
> forcing the user to spend time working around the problem.
But there -is- an option.
I read old 'clearsigned' stuff all the time from within mutt, and I can
sign or encrypt a document from within vi before passing it back to
mutt.
Should mutt add support for attaching files with uuencode so that the
Elm users are happy? Or should it do things properly by default and let
the broken mailers get fixed?
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
