begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:02:59PM -0800:
taking the attitude of i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong
only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered.
Look where it got the Internet.
Sticking to documented RFCs, instead of
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:44:22PM -0700:
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.
It does when I use it. What did you put
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:22:19AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it?
it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the
p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want
to do pgp/mime
Peter, et al --
...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said...
%
% On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:22:19AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
%
% It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it?
I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
here now... Peter,
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:07:19AM -0500:
I totally agree with you. _Communicate_, that is the key word.
You signed that with S/MIME, with which OE also has a problem, agreeing
with someone whose position was basically don't use PGP/MIME because
Outlook
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:29:16AM -0700:
it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the
p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want
to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500:
I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read
you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for
* Robert Conde [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.04.04 20:07 -0500]:
Is there anything wrong with hitting F in the compose menu and filtering
the message through the gpg --clearsign command?
Nothing at all. It leaves the other parts untouched though,
which is not (I don't think) desired in this case.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read
you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments,
but I think
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:37:33AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed.
Could you answer yes on a response to the list, so we can see what
you're sending out?
not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500:
%
% I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm
% here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read
% you to say
Peter --
...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said...
%
% On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:37:33AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
% There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed.
% Could you answer yes on a response to the list, so we can see what
% you're sending out?
%
% not
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:58:21AM -0700:
that is correct. p_c_t works fine for a simple email message without
any attachments; however, as soon as you add an attachment i think
mutt figures you're gonna send mime anyway so why not do the pgp that
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:01:18AM -0700:
not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email
from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an
inline sig from mutt? or...?
I meant an inline sig from Mutt, but
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:07:52AM -0500:
So you can send an attachment to an Outlook user and have the whole thing
be signed and that user can happily read and verify both parts.
No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:10:04AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
He means that he would like for you to send a message in $p_c_t format to
the list for our review. He might even mean that you should send another
with an attachment (hey, why not `mutt -v` and make it useful? :-)
and attempt to turn
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:12:05AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Ah; didn't realize that was the problem you were describing. Yes,
that's a limitation of the patch.
That's what happens when you try to do something that isn't
standardized; different people do it differently.
curses! am i
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to
send an Outlook user a signed email and a patch, and he has to open both
the email and the patch seperately, well, sometimes Microsoft's
stupidity is
05-Apr-02 at 09:29, Peter T. Abplanalp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
generally speaking, i'd have to say i agree with you; however, the
people who are using outlook, generally speaking, are not very
technical and sometimes have trouble with anything that requires
knowledge of anything other
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:39:17PM +, Simon White wrote:
Isn't that kinda like saying you have a door with 3 locks, but there are
people who can't be bothered to use 3 keys, so you leave one open anyway
so that those people can come into your secure environment with less than
the
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 05:05:41PM +, Simon White wrote:
If it dies, it's biology. If it blows up, it's chemistry, and if it
doesn't work, it's physics.
...and if it doesn't work, it's...anyone...anyone...anyone...OUTLOOK!
--
Peter Abplanalp
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP:
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:29:57AM -0700:
manner. now, as we all know, msft isn't going to fix outlook so if i
want to correspond securly with outlook users, i need to try and
accomodate. PITA but there it is.
Let me see if I get this straight:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:46:15PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Let me see if I get this straight:
ok.
This hypothetical person is capable of installing a PGP plugin for
Outlook, but isn't capable of using it to decrypt an attached file?
first a little clarification, i am talking about the
ok, i've spent a number of hours over the last two days going over the
list archives for mutt and gnupg reading up on the conventions for
signing messages. it is now my understanding that there are 3 ways to
sign a message: pgp/mime, ascii armor, and application/pgp. i'm not
certain on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can
do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is
that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is
using outlook.
On Thu 04-Apr-2002 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
it is now my understanding that there are 3 ways to sign a message:
pgp/mime, ascii armor, and application/pgp. i'm not certain on the
terminology for the last two or even that there is a difference
between them. might
Peter --
...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said...
%
% On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
% Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
...
% that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is
% using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data
...
%
%
Robert --
...and then Robert Conde said...
%
% Where can I get that pgp_outlook_compat patch? mutt.org has a link to
% ftp.cm.nu, but I can't access it. Is there somewhere else I can get it?
See my reply, in this thread, to Peter and then surf over to
http://mutt.justpickone.org/
David T-G wrote:
... that's my understanding as well. $p_c_t will only work if you have
no attachments and use us-ascii characters, or at least that's the way
it's been through 1.3.x so far.
yup - for attachments you'd need to use s/mime or PGP/MIME.
traditionally signed messages are
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:06:14PM -0700:
a mime anyway so why not just add a pgp/mime part? is it even
possible to send an application/pgp message with an attachment?
No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil.
msg26729/pgp0.pgp
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:26:49PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil.
i kind of figured; however, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data
handles it by inline signing the message and then signing the
attachment separately. it handles encryption
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
Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
i kind of figured; however, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data
handles it by inline signing the message and then signing the
attachment separately. it handles encryption the same way. i guess
that this would be considered broken by today's standards. i
Jeremy, et al --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% I know most of these things were already said, but some of it's speculation
% and the complete answers may not be clear, so a bit of clarification:
Thanks; that's always helpful!
%
...
%
% Both of these (ascii-pgp and S/MIME) are
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
