On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41:54AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:22:30PM +0200, Remco Rijnders wrote: >> From a quick glance at the RFC's, I think mutt is not doing the right >> thing here. The Content-Description field doesn't appear to be mandatory, >> but even if it is, it's meant to be a description for human readers and >> not computers. As such, mutt probably should make no assumptions based on >> its presence or content. The Content-Type header should be sufficient for >> mutt to decide if it's dealing with an S/MIME message or not. > > The problem is that RFC5751 (S/MIME 3.2) says that the "smime-type" > parameter for application/pkcs7-mime is OPTIONAL. Thus, Mutt doesn't > have a way to inspect the Content-Type and know whether or not the > message is encrypted, signed, or whatnot. It used to be that the > Content-Description was set such that Mutt could use it as a heuristic. > For Outlook compatibility, Mutt assumes that application/pkcs7-mime with > a "name=*.p7m" is a signed message.
Should I have time on the weekend, I guess it might be worth taking a look at how Thunderbird deals with this itself? Appearantly it somehow figures out to do the right thing in the absence of this information (or perhaps it just is lucky that all other MUA's do include this info and can handle its own corner case). Remco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
