Re: mutt and PGP/GPG
On 2001-09-17 21:22:54 -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote: In recent devel versions of Mutt, you can hit Esc-P to convert a message on-the-fly. In particular, this also works when the PGP-signed or encrypted body part is an attachment. -- Thomas Roesslerhttp://log.does-not-exist.org/
mutt and PGP/GPG
Hi all While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on the planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text of the signature is simply included in the message rather than being run the GPG for verification. Matt -- Matt Spong || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || AIM: Spong1027 || http://www.forkbomb.net Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -Benjamin Franklin PGP signature
Re: mutt and PGP/GPG
Matt Spong wrote: While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on the planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text of the signature is simply included in the message rather than being run the GPG for verification. my understanding is that the old method of signing (with everything included in the text) is deprecated because it can only handle one (ie the US) character set. PGP/MIME is the new standard but as yet is not implemented by all clients (and can result in unreadable output in outlook apparently). you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm not sure if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically check signatures that use the old style method, although i'm sure a quick search on google would turn up something regarding this. w -- Sintax error in config file! (line 378) aborted! GPG Public Key: http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/
Re: mutt and PGP/GPG
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
I don't use procmail; I use maildrop. What does this procmail recipe do? I
would like to translate it into maildrop.
I think this widely circulated piece of code in your .procmailrc
should take care of that.
-
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
* ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
| formail -i Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt
:0 fBw
* ^-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
* ^-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
* ^-END PGP SIGNATURE-
| formail -i Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign
}
--
Anand Buddhdev
Re: mutt and PGP/GPG
Thus spake Will Yardley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm not sure if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically check signatures that use the old style method, although i'm sure a quick search on google would turn up something regarding this. In recent devel versions of Mutt, you can hit Esc-P to convert a message on-the-fly. -- | Justin R. Miller / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 0xC9C40C31 | Of all the things I've lost, I miss my pants the most. -- PGP signature
Re: fuction of mutt, possible, pgp/gpg
I had same annoyance. I made following entry to my .muttrc to turn on/off GPG/PGP sig check to avoid this annoyance. macro index S ":toggle pgp_verify_sig\n" # define S to toggle GPG check If you find better method to deal with this, let me know by cc: Osamu On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:35:06PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote: When you have a verified a pgp/gpg key once, is it necessary for mutt to ask you to verify it again? -- /Jason G Helfman -- + Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG-key: 1024D/D5DE453D + + Fingerprint: 814E BD64 3288 40E7 E88E 3D92 C3F8 EA94 D5DE 453D + + === http://www.aokiconsulting.com === Cupertino, CA USA === +
