On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:54:26PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700: > > 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? > > Yes. There's a patch, and it's already in the latest CVS versions. > > See the archives; it's been discussed several times in the last week, > and at least once today.
ok, i checked the archives and what i found was that people were talking about dale's p_c_t patch. that does not do what outlook is expecting w.r.t. attachments. i also got the cvs version and built that. it behaves like 1.3.28 with dale's patch out-of-the-box; however, that is not doing what outlook expects w.r.t. attachments either. am i missing something? when i send stuff from outlook, i think it first clearsigns the email message and then clearsigns the attachment and then creates a mime message. when my mutt gets a hold of it, it checks the inline sig and then i have to save off the attachment which i can then gpg --verify from the command line. when i send it from my mutt, if there is an attachment, i no longer get the send inline sig prompt (which i get on non-attachment emails because i have p_c_t set to ask-no) and mutt sends the message of as pgp/mime, i'm guessing. speaking of which, how can i check this w/ outlook? so i can see how the pgp/mime stuff is easier but i still need to communicate with quite a few outlook people so i'd like for my mutt to give me that option. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu
msg26740/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
