Jussi Ekholm wrote: > I just wanted to ask this, because it's been on my mind for quite a > bit of time already. So, as Mutt's manual say, "the old-style PGP > message format is _strongly deprecated_". I shouldn't use it, then? > But is the "new-style" PGP message format somehow unreadable for some > mail clients, like Outlook? > > I also have this in my ~/.muttrc (they're from Rolan Rosenfield):
well - strongly deprecated, perhaps, but since there are only a few MUAs which have good PGP/MIME support (none of them very commonly used in most circles) it's useful to be able to send clearsigned messages. > |# Once you are done with composing a mail in vim, and > |# before you press y to send out an email, just press > |# S and enter your PGP passphrase to pgp-clearsign an > |# email. Mutt uses PGP-MIME signatures by default, and > |# several clients (most notably windows clients) absolutely > |# hate the very idea of PGP-MIME :( > |# Put your gpg key id below instead of my key 0xEDEDEFB9 > | macro compose S "Fgpg -a --clearsign -u 0x1410081E" > > Should I use this? I've noticed, that it has some things, that I'm not > so fond of - for example, it messes up the signature delimiter > completely. Or should I just sign all of my mails with "new-style" PGP > message format? I haven't studied how differently Mutt handles PGP > messages in 1.5.1.CVS than in stable releases, but still... mutt 1.5.1 sends traditional pgp messages with a content-type of text/plain and should work fine with outhouse and other clients. i usually send clearsigned messages if i have a reason to sign a message to a large group of people; if i'm sending to an individual i know uses mutt or some other non-sucky mua, i might use PGP/MIME. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
