On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:45:19AM +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * The Fuzzy Whirlpool Thunderstorm wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2014, at 20:04
> (+0200):
>
> > Is there any convenient way to automatically decrypt inline pgp
> > messages? Piping the text attachment to `gpg --decrypt` works,
> > but I need a simpler way to do the task.
>
> if you use procmail, you could apply the following recipes to
> handle inline PGP messages at least a little bit easier. But of
> course, you can't catch all curiosities automatically that some
> MUA may produce. So, finally, Derek's solutions may fit better.
>
> :0
> * ! ^Content-Type:[ \t]+message/
> * ! ^Content-Type:[ \t]+multipart/
> * ! ^Content-Type:[ \t]+application/pgp
> {
> :0 f w
> * B ?? ^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
> * B ?? ^-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
> |formail -b -f -i 'Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
> x-action=encrypt'
>
> :0 f w
> * B ?? ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> * B ?? ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> * B ?? ^-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> |formail -b -f -i 'Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
> x-action=sign'
> }
>
> For further details see the Mutt-GnuPG-PGP-HOWTO which is quite
> old now (Feb 2000) [1]. Please note also, that the current
> procmail v3.22 has some issues with the B flag [2]. Therefore I
> suggest using the above modified/extended recipes instead.
>
> > Although inline pgp is deprecated, many mail user agent such as
> > K9 mail is still using it.
> >
> > In addition to that, is there any way to compose an inline pgp
> > mail using mutt?
>
> Isn't coping with incoming inline PGP messages enough? I mean,
> there is a standard for PGP/MIME, RFC 3156 [3], and it's 13 years
> old. k9mail seems to still work on supporting it - also for
> several years now[4].
>
> Perhaps you may consider the other side of inline PGP [5].
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
> [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Mutt-GnuPG-PGP-HOWTO-8.html
> [2] http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/doc/#flags_hb_at_top_of_recipe_warning
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3156.txt
> [4] https://code.google.com/p/k9mail/issues/detail?id=13#c89
> https://code.google.com/p/k9mail/issues/detail?id=5864#c6
> [5] https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful
>
Yeah, that's sure K9 is a way too late to not folow OpenPGP new RFC.
I think the best way is using PGP/MIME format and abandon the legacy inline PGP
format.
Thanks for detailed answer.
pgpFvAnRA6CMw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
