also sprach Michael Wagner [2009.12.03.0847 +0100]:
> JFTR: Today was an upgrade of the 'mutt' package in Debian unstable and
> now it works very well.
I know: http://bugs.debian.org/558813 ;)
Thanks for letting the list know!
--
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
stupidi
* martin f krafft 29.11.2009
> also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
> [2009.11.29.1631 +0100]:
> ro this means that your mutt 1.5.20 on Darwin correctly splits the
> message and only passes to gnupg what it must, while "our" 1.5.20 on
> Debian sid does not. Very strange indeed.
Hello Martin,
JFT
also sprach Derek Martin [2009.11.30.1921 +0100]:
> My Mutt is Mutt 1.5.20hg (2009-06-23), only slightly newer than yours,
> but it clearly does have code to handle the case of pgp-mixed text
> bodies (in pgp_application_pgp_handler() in pgp.c). So it would seem
> the discussion is moot.
Indeed.
also sprach Kyle Wheeler [2009.11.30.1638 +0100]:
> ...Or if you deal with (Al)Pine+PGP people, because (Al)Pine cannot
> deal with PGP-MIME or any MIME format where one MIME component must be
> interpreted differently based on the contents of another MIME
> component.
>
> As for Outlook... I
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:59:32AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
> [2009.11.28.2236 +0100]:
> > I then entered ':exec check-traditional-pgp' in mutt, and viewed
> > the message. The text preceding the digitally signed portion of
> > the message was still visibl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Monday, November 30 at 09:58 AM, quoth martin f krafft:
> The problem comes when they aren't your peers (but e.g. your boss),
> or when you deal with Outlook+PGP people, because as far as I know,
> there is no way to do PGP-MIME with Outlook.
.
also sprach Derek Martin [2009.11.30.0811 +0100]:
> Yes, I mean with any MIME. PGP predates MIME by about a year, as
> far as I can tell. So-called "traditional" PGP was intended to be
> used entirely within the message body, because at the time it was
> created there was *only* a message body.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:06:31PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text lost?
No, actually...
> It is for me and I would call it a bug.
I can see why you'd say that, but I don't agree (regardless of the
fact it's not happening for me).
also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
[2009.11.29.1631 +0100]:
> * Michael Wagner [2009-11-29 07:59 -0500]:
> > * martin f krafft 29.11.2009
> > > This *could* be due to gnupg. Do you see the unsigned portions of
> > > the text if you run
> > >
> > > gpg < ~/test
>
> I do *not* see the text prece
* Michael Wagner [2009-11-29 07:59 -0500]:
> * martin f krafft 29.11.2009
> > This *could* be due to gnupg. Do you see the unsigned portions of
> > the text if you run
> >
> > gpg < ~/test
I do *not* see the text preceding the digitally signed portion of the
message when I run `gpg < ~/test`.
* martin f krafft 29.11.2009
> also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
> [2009.11.28.2236 +0100]:
> > * Todd Zullinger [2009-11-27 21:07 -0500]:
> > > If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text
> > > lost? It is for me and I would call it a bug. It might also be
> > > some subtle
also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
[2009.11.28.2236 +0100]:
> * Todd Zullinger [2009-11-27 21:07 -0500]:
> > If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text
> > lost? It is for me and I would call it a bug. It might also be
> > some subtle difference between our configurations, gp
* Todd Zullinger [2009-11-27 21:07 -0500]:
> If you call check-traditional-pgp on this message, is this text lost?
> It is for me and I would call it a bug. It might also be some subtle
> difference between our configurations, gpg versions, etc.
FWIW I copied your message into ~/test, and then o
also sprach Derek Martin [2009.11.28.0314 +0100]:
> I have pgp_auto_decode set, and additionally I unset it and manually
> executed check-traditional-pgp, and I saw the above text in all cases.
> So unless I misunderstood you, it seems my Mutt behaves differently
> from yours...
Indeed, and I tak
I sometimes see TOFU on lists where the sender is replying to a
message that was signed using traditional (inline) PGP. Their message
does not show up once check-traditional-pgp is called. Only the
original text from the quoted PGP signed section is displayed. I
don't think mutt has always behav
So, a couple of things...
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:55:52AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> You won't see this text if mutt automatically verifies signed text
> (if pgp_auto_decode is set). Run ':exec
> check-traditional-pgp' if you see it to get the described
> effect.
I have pgp_auto_decode se
martin f krafft wrote:
> The actual problem remains though. For some reason, the last message
> I sent was inline *and* PGP-mime signed, thus this one is simpler to
> exemplify the problem.
>
> There's a bit of text preceding the "Hello," up top of this mail,
> but if you configured mutt with pgp_a
You won't see this text if mutt automatically verifies signed text
(if pgp_auto_decode is set). Run ':exec
check-traditional-pgp' if you see it to get the described
effect.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello,
also sprach Michelle Konzack [2009.11.27.1538
+0100]:
> It seem
Hello Martin,
It seems there is a misunderstanding from you of course the parser from
because normaly the "Debian Signature Parser" cut off the GPG
signed message and packe it into a new one with the signature attached,
which mean, it change te Header from "gpg-signed" to "multipart" put the
You won't see this text if mutt automatically verifies signed text
(if pgp_auto_decode is set). Run ':exec
check-traditional-pgp' if you see it to get the described
effect.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hey folks,
I sent this message clear-signed on purpose to illustrate wha
20 matches
Mail list logo
