Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > i kind of figured; however, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data > handles it by inline signing the message and then signing the > attachment separately. it handles encryption the same way. i guess > that this would be considered "broken" by today's "standards." i > guess if i want mutt to handle things the same way for those of my > recipients who have to use outlook, i'm going to have to "fix" mutt or > has anyone already done this?
whatever anyone tells you here, most people who don't use mutt or evolution (ie a large percentage of people who use PGP) don't use PGP/MIME. PGP/MIME is a "standard", but it's not "standard", if that makes sense. there are constant debates on this, so i'm going to shut my mouth right now. personally, the only time i use PGP/MIME is if i know that someone is able to deal with it or prefers that style. taking the attitude of "i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered. i've said it before, and i'll say it again... the purpose of email (as far as i'm concerned) is first and foremost to *communicate* with other people. very few people that i'm interested in communicating with use mutt (no offense intended to anyone here). -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
