On 11/10/01 06:08 PM, David T-G sat at the `puter and typed:
> Will --
>
> ...and then Will Yardley said...
> % David T-G wrote:
> % >
> % > % attachments that cannot be read from some mail clients (commandline
> % > % mail, for instance).
> ...
> % > % Anyway, I have been reprimanded, and so I promised not to autosign
> % > % until I figured out what the deal was.
> % >
> % > Heh. Fight back; sign everything and encourage them to upgrade to a Real
> % > Mail Program (tm).
> %
> % that seems a little harsh.... i'm sure there are many who would tell
> % those of us who use mutt to use a 'real mail program'. there's nothing
> % wrong with using mailx or other command line clients.
>
> While I overlooked that and figured that it was a mandated-by-management
> MUA, mutt is also a command-line MUA and it works dandily :-) Meanwhile,
> there's no particular reason for reprimand, even at the user-to-user
> level, since Louis is simply using a useful tool. If they want to bash
> mutt for doing it the Right Way instead of the Wrong Way (in case another
> for instance is LookOut!), then that's fair; we'll bash right back :-)
Well, I'm starting to wonder about the 'proper' way to do things. I
noticed that even when you do send mail as pgp_create_traditional, it
still sends it as multipart. That's part of the problem. Shouldn't
there be a way to sign and send as plain text? If not, then I think
Mutt is in danger of adopting the MS 'do it my way or else' attitude.
I thought the idea was to maintain flexibility.
I tested this myself by setting from within mutt:
:set pgp_create_traditional=yes
Then commented out my PGP 'fix' in procmail and sent the message to
myself.
This is the Content-Type header:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu"
That doesn't look traditional to me.
Seems to me if Mutt wants to follow current RFCs then it should.
Probably should anyway, but maintaining flexibility with any
moderately used format - especially *nix formats, is a must. Otherwise
it runs the risk of trying to become a purebred rather than a mutt. By
that I am referring to the MS mindset of do it one way only.
The mutt docs say the following about pgp_create_traditional:
. . .
This option controls whether Mutt generates old-style PGP encrypted or
signed messages under certain circumstances.
Note that PGP/MIME will be used automatically for messages which have
a character set different from us-ascii, or which consist of more than
a single MIME part.
. . .
Even if I explicitly set my charset to us-ascii, I get the
multipart/pgp. So it really looks like mutt is the culprit here.
Mutt is by far the best MUA I've found to date, and I'm not about to
just give up on it, but I really think this needs to be addressed.
With the right configuration, it should be able to handle the bogus
crap as well as anything, but should still be able to work well with
the plainest MUA out there.
$0.02. Save it or spend it.
Lou
--
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
http://www.keyslapper.org ????
The function of the expert is not to be more right than other people,
but to be wrong for more sophisticated reasons.
-- Dr. David Butler, British psephologist
PGP signature
