mutt/PGP works interactively but not on command line, what's going wrong?
Dear all, I am obviously doing something wrong but can't find out what... I configured mutt to PGP-sign/encrypt (~/.muttrc and ~/.gpg.rc). When sending out an email interactively, everything works fine: emails get signed and encrypted by mutt. But if I am sending a mail via the command line, mutt doesn't bother about PGP at all: The email is sent out, but without any PGP. Does anybody know what's going wrong? I am using Mutt 1.5.21 on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (64bit). Command line: $ echo Body Text | mutt -s Subject Text -F /home/me/.muttrc -d 5 recei...@my-domain.de .muttrc: $ cat .muttrc set from = sen...@my-domain.de set realname = Sender set smtp_url = smtp://sen...@my-domain.de@smtp.my-domain.de:25/ set smtp_pass = set smtp_authenticators = plain:cram-md5 set ssl_force_tls = no set ssl_starttls = no source /home/me/.gpg.rc set pgp_use_gpg_agent=yes set pgp_autosign=yes set pgp_autoencrypt=yes set pgp_auto_decode=yes set pgp_replysign=yes set pgp_replysignencrypted=yes set pgp_replyencrypt=yes set pgp_verify_sig=yes set pgp_sign_as=F5216DFA set pgp_timeout=3600 set crypt_autosign set crypt_replyencrypt set crypt_replysign set crypt_autoencrypt=yes set crypt_replyencrypt=yes set crypt_replysignencrypted=yes set crypt_verify_sig=yes Debug output: $ cat .muttdebug0 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) debugging at level 5 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbe8, *ldata = (nil) [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added */.* [9] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbe0, *ldata = (nil) [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added text/x-vcard [7] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added application/pgp.* [2] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbe0, *ldata = 0x1e5e400 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: skipping text/x-vcard [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: skipping application/pgp.* [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added application/x-pkcs7-.* [2] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbd8, *ldata = (nil) [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added text/plain [7] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbe0, *ldata = 0x1e5e400 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: skipping text/x-vcard [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: skipping application/pgp.* [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: skipping application/x-pkcs7-.* [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added message/external-body [4] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: ldata = 0x6ddbd0, *ldata = (nil) [2015-01-06 11:38:41] parse_attach_list: added message/external-body [4] [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/usr/lib/mutt/source-muttrc.d|'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc.d/charset.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc.d/colors.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc.d/compressed-folders.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc.d/gpg.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/etc/Muttrc.d/smime.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/home/me/.muttrc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Reading configuration file '/home/me/.gpg.rc'. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] ../send.c:1214: mutt_mktemp returns /tmp/mutt-my-machine-1001-5138-18437527211071003667. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] ../sendlib.c:2696: mutt_mktemp returns /tmp/mutt-my-machine-1001-5138-287496981775757253. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] mwoh: buf[Subject: Subject Text] is short enough [2015-01-06 11:38:41] ../send.c:988: mutt_mktemp returns /tmp/mutt-my-machine-1001-5138-959755060790486839. [2015-01-06 11:38:41] mwoh: buf[Subject: Subject Text] is short enough [2015-01-06 11:38:41] Connected to smtp.my-domain.de:25 on fd=4 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 220 my-mailserver.de ESMTP Postfix (cust) [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 EHLO my-machine [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-my-mailserver.de [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-PIPELINING [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-SIZE 5120 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 250 8BITMIME [2015-01-06 11:38:41] smtp_authenticate: Trying method plain [2015-01-06 11:38:41] SASL local ip: my.ip.add.ress;59604, remote ip:the.ip.add.ress;25 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] External authentication name: sen...@my-domain.de [2015-01-06 11:38:41] mutt_sasl_cb_authname: getting authname for smtp.my-domain.de:25 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] mutt_sasl_cb_authname: getting user for smtp.my-domain.de:25 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] mutt_sasl_cb_pass: getting password for sen...@my-domain.de@smtp.my-domain.de:25 [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 AUTH PLAIN x= [2015-01-06 11:38:41] 4 235 2.7.0 Authentication successful [2015-01-06 11:38:41] SASL protection strength:
Re: Honor X-Mutt-PGP with resend-message
Hello everyone, On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:48:08PM +0200, Antoine Amarilli wrote: The short version of my question is: Is there a way for the resend-message command to honor PGP signature/encryption settings stored in the target message in the X-Mutt-PGP header? The reason why I ask: I want to have postponed messages appear in my inbox, and be able to recall them by selecting them in the index view and hitting the 'R' key. For reference, I managed to make this work, by switching to a different hack which uses recall-message rather than resend-message, but saves the message to recall in a temporary mailbox first. Mere is my configuration: # save postponed mail in the inbox set postponed==inbox # ugly hack to resume the currently highlighted mail # may fail messily if you do not create =draft_tmp first macro index,pager R \ enter-commandset postponed='=draft_tmp' my_old_maildir_trash=\$maildir_trash nomaildir_trashenter\ s=draft_tmpenterrecall-messageenter-commandset postponed='=inbox' maildir_trash=\$my_old_maildir_trashenter \ recall current message # unmodified drafts should be saved back to the inbox, not discarded set noabort_unmodified It seems to work for my purposes. Best, -- Antoine Amarilli signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Honor X-Mutt-PGP with resend-message
Hello everyone, I'm new to this list, I hope that this is the right kind of questions and the right place where to ask them. The short version of my question is: Is there a way for the resend-message command to honor PGP signature/encryption settings stored in the target message in the X-Mutt-PGP header? The reason why I ask: I want to have postponed messages appear in my inbox, and be able to recall them by selecting them in the index view and hitting the 'R' key. I accordingly set postponed=inbox, but then the recall-message commands insists on opening its own prompt to select the message to recall (in other words, I found no way to recall the selected message in the index). I accordingly use the resend-message command (following the manual's description of it as recall from arbitrary folders), but then this command ignores the encryption settings for the postponed message (and chooses to have no encryption/signature instead). Indeed, postponing the message stores a message without encryption or signature, and merely indiates in a X-Mutt-PGP header what the message setting was, and resend-messages looks at the message itself to decide whether to sign or encrypt, rather than using this header. Hence the question above; but maybe my way to use =inbox as the postponed folder is not the right way to obtain the behavior I want. Thanks in advance for any advice! Regards, -- Antoine Amarilli signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mutt + pgp + many repicients
Gregor -- Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on the mailing list. This note really has nothing to do with mutt and MH mailboxes. ...and then Gregor Zattler said... % % Hi, % % i often write E-Mails to a bunch of people (say n persons). For % every email address there is a pgp-hook. But mutt continues bothering % me n times with questions % Use keyID = 0x12345678 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]? ([yes]/no): % I hit return and it shows me all UIDs belonging to this key, even % if there is only one. I have to hit return. % % Does anybody how to configure mutt (v. 1.4) not to ask these % questions? There's a patch by Dale Woolridge which enhances the pgp-hook functionality and helps a lot with this problem. You can pick it up from the archives, from his page, or from my cocktail page at http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/ at your convenience. % % % Ciao, Gregor % -- % The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet. % -- William Gibson HTH HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg29786/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mutt + pgp + many repicients
Hi David, * David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [22. Jul. 2002]: Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on the mailing list. Sorry, i forgot to delete the reply-to: -header. [...] % every email address there is a pgp-hook. But mutt continues bothering % me n times with questions % Use keyID = 0x12345678 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]? ([yes]/no): % I hit return and it shows me all UIDs belonging to this key, even % if there is only one. I have to hit return. [...] There's a patch by Dale Woolridge which enhances the pgp-hook functionality and helps a lot with this problem. You can pick it up from the archives, from his page, or from my cocktail page at http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/ Thanx a bundle, i will have a look. Ciao, Gregor -- The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet. -- William Gibson
Re: mutt + pgp + many repicients
Gregor -- ...and then Gregor Zattler said... % % Hi David, % * David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [22. Jul. 2002]: % Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on % the mailing list. % % Sorry, i forgot to delete the reply-to: -header. Well, you needed to get rid of the In-Reply-To: and References: headers in order to not screw up the threading for the rest of us; I don't care what you put for the R-T: header :-) % ... % There's a patch by Dale Woolridge which enhances the pgp-hook ... %http://mutt.justpickone.org/mutt-build-cocktail/ % % Thanx a bundle, i will have a look. HTH % % % Ciao, Gregor % -- % The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet. % -- William Gibson HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg29792/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
On 25, Sep, 2001 at 08:48:07AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: David T-G mutt [24/09/01 20:48 -0400]: % Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself? Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. I use freebsd's port collection - I'll see if I can work this into the port I'm running. I think you can make patch, then apply your 3rd party patch, and then a make install. I've done something like it with some other port on OpenBSD once. HTH, HAND Morten -- Morten Liebach [EMAIL PROTECTED] || https://pc89225.stofanet.dk/ Get my PGP key from https://pc89225.stofanet.dk/pgpkey.asc For a laugh, go to https://pc89225.stofanet.dk/ceritificate/
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
Morten Liebach mutt [25/09/01 09:27 +0200]: I think you can make patch, then apply your 3rd party patch, and then a make install. I'll see if I can contact the patch maintainer and move it into the freebsd ports tree. I'd hate to do it everytime I cvsup and install a new mutt. -suresh PGP signature
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote: % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime. Yep. [SNIP] Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. Well, o.k. thanks... But two questions: - Where can I get the patch? - If litterally no one else (apparently) supports PGP in this manner, why does mutt insist on doing it this way? -- --- Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
Suresh, et al -- ...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said... % Hi Hi! % % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime. Yep. % ... % either ... they'd prefer % % Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii % Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit % % Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself? Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. HTH HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Fwd: Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote: % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime. Yep. [SNIP] Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. Well, o.k. thanks... But two questions: - Where can I get the patch? - If litterally no one else (apparently) supports PGP in this manner, why does mutt insist on doing it this way? -- --- Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
David T-G mutt [24/09/01 20:48 -0400]: % Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself? Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. I use freebsd's port collection - I'll see if I can work this into the port I'm running. -suresh PGP signature
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
Bruno Postle mutt [24/09/01 21:03 +0100]: That would be the right way to do it. I do it the wrong way in mutt :-), when I need to communicate with the nic.uk robot (it requires all sorts of annoying pgp things) I use: macro compose S Fgpg -a --clearsign -u 0x82C08753 And to encrypt / encrypt and sign? Ah, no matter, I'll figure it out. -suresh PGP signature
Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:12:23AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Hi Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime. Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself? I do this frequently with vim, myself. The biggest drawback is you need to know when it's necessary to do it ;-) -- David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Re: ye olde mutt pgp/mime versus clearsign FAQ
Derek -- ...and then Derek D. Martin said... % On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote: % % % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime. % % Yep. % [SNIP] % Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before. % % Well, o.k. thanks... But two questions: % % - Where can I get the patch? You can surf over to http://mutt.sector13.org/mutt-build-cocktail for one... % % - If litterally no one else (apparently) supports PGP in this manner, %why does mutt insist on doing it this way? Because it's The Right Way, AFAIUI. Check the archives for one of the half dozen wars over this through the past two years or so. % % % -- % --- % Derek Martin | Unix/Linux geek % [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D % Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
* Ailbhe Leamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote: ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote: [attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David discussion so far] snip % Yes, but _why_? Why use PGP/GPG? Because it should be mainstream and available to all, it should be easy to use and familiar to all, and private communication should be both avaiable and commonplace rather than challenging and noteworthy. OK, all of this I understand. I completely fail to understand why it should apply to public communication, as distinct from private communication. Might it be to establish precedent? I sign my mailinglist submissions and my key winds up on the keyring of those that setup mutt to do the right thing. Now that does not create a WoT, but if I meet any of you face to face and we exchange keys you will have my key already making it easy(er) to verify that the key you recived IRL is the real thing. snip All of these are good reasons, and I understand that if in the past you have been a victim of malicious forgery, or anything else, you'd want to make sure it couldn't happen again. But I don't see how pgp-signing things to a public mailing list ensures that. Common use of GPG/PGP has to start somewhere, why not in the open. By signing mailinglist submissions you key public key exposure(sp) % distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there % are archives? Yes. I must admit that I don't see your point here, though. Well, if I read your mail using a browser to access the archives, I absolutely cannot verify whether your pgp signature is good, bad, or yellow. Archives that strip pgp signatures are as bad as mime-sweeper doing the same thing under the flag of virus protection (arh blech spit). snip good, civilized discussion on pki in actual use Fascinated, Ailbhe AOL /guido -- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote: ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote: [attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David discussion so far] % Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a % pgp-signature to things. % % Having a sigfile doesn't seem like the same thing to me, either. I accept both of those points. I also reserve the right to draw the same thing line anywhere I please. I understand that. I was kind of hoping you could explain to me why you seem to think that they _are_ the same thing. For some reason I'm assuming that you haven't drawn a line arbitrarily based on the colour of the dirt on your shoes, or something. % It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone everywhere should be % Yes, but _why_? Why use PGP/GPG? Because it should be mainstream and available to all, it should be easy to use and familiar to all, and private communication should be both avaiable and commonplace rather than challenging and noteworthy. OK, all of this I understand. I completely fail to understand why it should apply to public communication, as distinct from private communication. % In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for I can't think of a time I'd encrypt a mail to a mailing list, since I don't know of any encryption-aware mailing list servers (though such things have been discussed even here). Oh good. It's useful to sign a message so that others can confirm that the message came from me as they see it -- whether because I am concerned about forgery, concerned about a patch or piece of code being maliciously modified, or concerned about my messages being accidentally munged in transmission (found on this list only a month or two ago and bought to my attention by a guy -- whose name I have now forgotten but whose attention is still appreciated -- who wondered why my messages kept saying bad signature and eventually tracked down to an added space and newline, IIRC). All of these are good reasons, and I understand that if in the past you have been a victim of malicious forgery, or anything else, you'd want to make sure it couldn't happen again. But I don't see how pgp-signing things to a public mailing list ensures that. % distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there % are archives? Yes. I must admit that I don't see your point here, though. Well, if I read your mail using a browser to access the archives, I absolutely cannot verify whether your pgp signature is good, bad, or yellow. % Everything I can do to encourage such behavior and raise % everyone's awareness is thus a good thing. Since I don't often % have to post anonymously (though I generally don't have a problem % with those who do), I can sign everything. % % OK. That's really useful. I see this. Er. Where's your public % key? And At the moment I'm in transition, so you'll not find a public key for [EMAIL PROTECTED] out there; sorry about that, but you can find it if you look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and messages sent there will get to me. You can, however, find my key on the public key servers as well as at my web site; just ask. Well, since every message you send is pgp-signed, having your public key would be useful, I think. Though admittedly a valid public key for the address you actually use would be best. % how do I verify that it _is_ your public key? If I can't, what % possible use could it be? It's a start. I haven't been to any signing parties, I admit, but there are those who have bothered to contact me directly and exchange keys. Well, it's probably because I know too many people too interested in security, but I'd not trust your key to prove anything unless we exchanged keys face to face, and even then I wouldn't trust it much unless it had been signed by people I know and trust. I don't know you, I therefore don't trust you, and I don't trust your public key. All it proves to me is that your messages are probably consistently being sent by the same person. % Here, of all places, it should be no biggie; mutt can handle % GPG/PGP with ease, and procmail/formail could strip out the % signature entirely, and this is the group that would know how to % do it. % I repeat: archives? % http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mutt-users/message/21394 Looks fine to me. I still don't see your point. You can't be arguing that I shouldn't sign my messages because the archive server can't read 'em, and I can't imagine that you'd argue that signing is useless because the archive doesn't retain it (but if you are my answer is So what? I have no particular interest in the archives and can't help that the signature is stripped.). Um. Does I have no particular interest in the archives translate to I have no particular interest in the people who read the list primarily through the archives? or am I missing some small but vital point? Is it ok if I send
Re: Mutt + PGP
On (14/09/01 15:26), Justin R. Miller wrote: Ailbhe, you should read up on the web of trust. While it is the weak point in public key crypto, it answers your question. Trouble with the web of trust is that I don't trust it unless it contains a fairly high proportion of people I know and trust. Admittedly, this is partly because I like to know that my signature on a key is trustworthy. Vanity... Ailbhe -- Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
Re: Mutt + PGP
Ailbhe -- ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote: % % ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote: % [attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David % discussion so far] Oh, but that's where the fun comes in! :-) % % % Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a % % pgp-signature to things. % % % % Having a sigfile doesn't seem like the same thing to me, either. % % I accept both of those points. I also reserve the right to draw the % same thing line anywhere I please. % % I understand that. I was kind of hoping you could explain to me why you % seem to think that they _are_ the same thing. For some reason I'm Sure. Think of the line as a linear equation, much like x=y. On the low end of the graph you have someone who perhaps signs his name at the bottom of his post but has an anonymous address like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or such, or one who [perhaps] has some nameless address and doesn't fill in a name. In the middle you have someone who has realistic contact information in his email. On the high side you have someone who not only provides a name (more in a moment) but also provides a mechanism for not only ensuring that the post came from him but also which you might, through the WoT, be able to believe to be a real person. This, as it stands, certainly isn't perfect as a means of identification, but that's not my goal. I have created the persona [EMAIL PROTECTED], and will later connect that to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but neither of those is guaranteed to tell you anything about David Thorburn-Gundlach. I have also created the persona [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my work as the Keeper of the Light Bulb Joke List, and it doesn't have to be related to davidtg@bigfoot even if I'm the same physical natural person. % assuming that you haven't drawn a line arbitrarily based on the colour % of the dirt on your shoes, or something. Nope :-) % % Why use PGP/GPG? Because it should be mainstream and available % to all, it should be easy to use and familiar to all, and private % communication should be both avaiable and commonplace rather than % challenging and noteworthy. % % OK, all of this I understand. I completely fail to understand why it % should apply to public communication, as distinct from private % communication. 1) What I say publicly should be verifiable as coming from me, or perhaps that should be stated as it should be clear that something publicly stated in my name that didn't come from me if fact did not. 2) By using PGP in public communication I reach the greater masses and, even if it's when people ask hey, what's this .att thing on your mail?, spread the word about PGP. % % % In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for % % I can't think of a time I'd encrypt a mail to a mailing list, since I % don't know of any encryption-aware mailing list servers (though such % things have been discussed even here). % % Oh good. Do I detect a note of relief? :-) C'mon, a note encrypted to 140 people wouldn't be *that* big! % ... % still appreciated -- who wondered why my messages kept saying bad % signature and eventually tracked down to an added space and newline, % IIRC). % % All of these are good reasons, and I understand that if in the past you % have been a victim of malicious forgery, or anything else, you'd want % to make sure it couldn't happen again. But I don't see how pgp-signing % things to a public mailing list ensures that. Why should I wait until something happens before wanting to ensure that it can't happen? By signing *everything* I send I increase the understanding that anything I don't sign probably didn't come from me. % % % distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there % % are archives? % % Yes. I must admit that I don't see your point here, though. % % Well, if I read your mail using a browser to access the archives, I % absolutely cannot verify whether your pgp signature is good, bad, or % yellow. So I now understand. I must respond your loss, since the message was signed when I sent it. If your point is that, since the archives toss the signature, I should dispense with signing, I heartily disagree. % % % OK. That's really useful. I see this. Er. Where's your public % % key? And % % At the moment I'm in transition, so you'll not find a public key for % [EMAIL PROTECTED] out there; sorry about that, but you can find % it if you look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and messages sent there will % get to me. You can, however, find my key on the public key servers as % well as at my web site; just ask. % % Well, since every message you send is pgp-signed, having your public You can obtain it by searching for the key ID instead of the email address, or by dropping me a note directly (and you can verify the key you get back, now that you'll have the additional information, with the public
Re: Mutt + PGP
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote: OK, all of this I understand. I completely fail to understand why it should apply to public communication, as distinct from private communication. Because it is still important to know that a public message comes from the person it really comes from, and has not been altered on the way. Public != unimportant. -- Will i shouldnt have touched myself when i was in the zen state or near it.
Re: Mutt + PGP
Ailbhe, et al -- ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % ... % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies. It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone everywhere should be signing and encrypting all of the time, except as required (don't sign if you want to be anonymous or don't encrypt if the message is for mass distribution -- you get the idea). Everything I can do to encourage such behavior and raise everyone's awareness is thus a good thing. Since I don't often have to post anonymously (though I generally don't have a problem with those who do), I can sign everything. Here, of all places, it should be no biggie; mutt can handle GPG/PGP with ease, and procmail/formail could strip out the signature entirely, and this is the group that would know how to do it. % % Ailbhe % % -- % Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/ :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote: ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies. Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a pgp-signature to things. Having a sigfile doesn't seem like the same thing to me, either. It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone everywhere should be signing and encrypting all of the time, except as required (don't sign if you want to be anonymous or don't encrypt if the message is for mass distribution -- you get the idea). Yes, but _why_? In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there are archives? Everything I can do to encourage such behavior and raise everyone's awareness is thus a good thing. Since I don't often have to post anonymously (though I generally don't have a problem with those who do), I can sign everything. OK. That's really useful. I see this. Er. Where's your public key? And how do I verify that it _is_ your public key? If I can't, what possible use could it be? Here, of all places, it should be no biggie; mutt can handle GPG/PGP with ease, and procmail/formail could strip out the signature entirely, and this is the group that would know how to do it. I repeat: archives? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mutt-users/message/21394 Ailbhe -- Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
Re: Mutt + PGP
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote: In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there are archives? Because someone can send an email to a mailing list purpoting to be from you that can cause a lot of damage, e.g. some form of hoax. A signed email can only be from you (assuming web of trust works as intended). -- * TRiG feels his eyes rejecting his head PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
Thus spake Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Because someone can send an email to a mailing list purpoting to be from you that can cause a lot of damage, e.g. some form of hoax. A signed email can only be from you (assuming web of trust works as intended). And I would add that although many people don't normally send them, patches and other attachments are included in the verification process. It can't hurt to have their content verified to assure that they weren't changed during sending. -- | Justin R. Miller / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 0xC9C40C31 | Of all the things I've lost, I miss my pants the most. -- PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
Ailbhe, et al -- ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote: % % ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... % % % % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? % % Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you % have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies. % % Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a % pgp-signature to things. % % Having a sigfile doesn't seem like the same thing to me, either. I accept both of those points. I also reserve the right to draw the same thing line anywhere I please. % % It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone everywhere should be % signing and encrypting all of the time, except as required (don't sign % if you want to be anonymous or don't encrypt if the message is for % mass distribution -- you get the idea). % % Yes, but _why_? Why use PGP/GPG? Because it should be mainstream and available to all, it should be easy to use and familiar to all, and private communication should be both avaiable and commonplace rather than challenging and noteworthy. % % In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for I can't think of a time I'd encrypt a mail to a mailing list, since I don't know of any encryption-aware mailing list servers (though such things have been discussed even here). It's useful to sign a message so that others can confirm that the message came from me as they see it -- whether because I am concerned about forgery, concerned about a patch or piece of code being maliciously modified, or concerned about my messages being accidentally munged in transmission (found on this list only a month or two ago and bought to my attention by a guy -- whose name I have now forgotten but whose attention is still appreciated -- who wondered why my messages kept saying bad signature and eventually tracked down to an added space and newline, IIRC). % distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there are % archives? Yes. I must admit that I don't see your point here, though. % % Everything I can do to encourage such behavior and raise everyone's % awareness is thus a good thing. Since I don't often have to post % anonymously (though I generally don't have a problem with those who % do), I can sign everything. % % OK. That's really useful. I see this. Er. Where's your public key? And At the moment I'm in transition, so you'll not find a public key for [EMAIL PROTECTED] out there; sorry about that, but you can find it if you look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and messages sent there will get to me. You can, however, find my key on the public key servers as well as at my web site; just ask. % how do I verify that it _is_ your public key? If I can't, what possible % use could it be? It's a start. I haven't been to any signing parties, I admit, but there are those who have bothered to contact me directly and exchange keys. % % Here, of all places, it should be no biggie; mutt can handle GPG/PGP % with ease, and procmail/formail could strip out the signature % entirely, and this is the group that would know how to do it. % % I repeat: archives? % http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mutt-users/message/21394 Looks fine to me. I still don't see your point. You can't be arguing that I shouldn't sign my messages because the archive server can't read 'em, and I can't imagine that you'd argue that signing is useless because the archive doesn't retain it (but if you are my answer is So what? I have no particular interest in the archives and can't help that the signature is stripped.). % % Ailbhe % % -- % Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/ Thanks for the discussion. I'm happy to continue, since I feel that I have a position that can be logically defended, but I don't have to and certainly don't have to on the list to the borement of most or all. I welcome your reply. :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
Thus spake David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): concerned about my messages being accidentally munged in transmission (found on this list only a month or two ago and bought to my attention by a guy -- whose name I have now forgotten but whose attention is still appreciated -- who wondered why my messages kept saying bad signature and eventually tracked down to an added space and newline, IIRC). That'd be me :-D At the moment I'm in transition, so you'll not find a public key for [EMAIL PROTECTED] out there; sorry about that, but you can find it if you look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and messages sent there will get to me. You can, however, find my key on the public key servers as well as at my web site; just ask. If my GnuPG setup doesn't find the key on the automatic retrieve (either because it hasn't mirrored across or isn't on the keyservers at all), then I will often email the person requesting it from them. I've found 100% cooperation in about two dozen occurances of this. Sometimes, also, a URL will be named in their signature and/or their headers. % how do I verify that it _is_ your public key? If I can't, what possible % use could it be? It's a start. I haven't been to any signing parties, I admit, but there are those who have bothered to contact me directly and exchange keys. Ailbhe, you should read up on the web of trust. While it is the weak point in public key crypto, it answers your question. Please keep in mind that I don't mean these comments to be inflammatory, and I don't think David does either. I just foresee that everyone will at some point be using crypto, and that leaving a digital signature off of a message will be seen with the same disdain as failing to add a subject header. -- | Justin R. Miller / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 0xC9C40C31 | Of all the things I've lost, I miss my pants the most. -- PGP signature
Mutt + PGP
Hello, Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that. But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed email. PGP signature could NOT be verified. I get that everytime...how can I 'NOT' get this? -- Nelson D. Guerrero PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 10:37:26AM -0400, Nelson D. Guerrero wrote: Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that. But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed email. PGP signature could NOT be verified. I get that everytime...how can I 'NOT' get this? 6.3.128. pgp_verify_sig Type: quadoption Default: yes If ``yes'', always attempt to verify PGP/MIME signatures. If ``ask'', ask whether or not to verify the signature. If ``no'', never attempt to verify PGP/MIME signatures. so just put set pgp_verify_sig=no and it won't try. Or, fix your gpg config :) -- Dan Boger Linux MVP brainbench.com PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that. But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed email. PGP signature could NOT be verified. I get that everytime...how can I 'NOT' get this? Assuming that the signature actually *is* good, add this line to your muttrc: set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from -- -Ben Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.superutility.net/ PGP signature
Re: Mutt + PGP
On (13/09/01 10:37), Nelson D. Guerrero wrote: PGP signature could NOT be verified. # Recognise good signatures set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from This way, only genuinely unrecognised signatures will give you this warning. Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Ailbhe -- Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
Re: Mutt + PGP
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:48:39PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote: On (13/09/01 10:37), Nelson D. Guerrero wrote: PGP signature could NOT be verified. # Recognise good signatures set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from This way, only genuinely unrecognised signatures will give you this warning. Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Ailbhe This is an excellent question, since I just accidentally bombarded this list with my public key I have been thinking that signing mailing list messages serves *no* useful purpose. An identity crisis maybe ? -- Regards Cliff
Re: Mutt + PGP
Cliff Sarginson mutt [13/09/01 18:08 +0200]: Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Ailbhe This is an excellent question, since I just accidentally bombarded this list with my public key I have been thinking that signing mailing list messages serves *no* useful purpose. There's no damned point to it - unless you anticipate that your mail will be forged by someone. Web of trust indeed .. based on a system that mistrusts everyone, assumes that someone's going to forge your address, in the first place ;) ^^ smiley, in 40 point arial black bold -suresh
Re: Mutt + PGP
On (13/09/01 21:59), Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Cliff Sarginson mutt [13/09/01 18:08 +0200]: Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Ailbhe This is an excellent question, since I just accidentally bombarded this list with my public key I have been thinking that signing mailing list messages serves *no* useful purpose. There's no damned point to it - unless you anticipate that your mail will be forged by someone. Web of trust indeed .. based on a system Unless you anticipate that your mail will be forged by someone who sends something potentially damaging to a public mailing list. I can't think of anything sent to something as public as this list that would really be really damaging. Certianly nothing that couldn't be denied with a pgp-signed mail... Ailbhe -- Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
New version of abook+mutt+pgp patch/scripts
Hi, I've put a new version of my abook patch and its accompanying scripts to http://www.net.uni-sb.de/~robin/abook (please note the new address). It makes the usage of mutt's PGP features more comfortable as you can turn on encryption/signing interactivly in abook for certain recipients. The patch itself has not changed, so if you have already applied it, you don't need to recompile abook again. The CHANGES are: - cut - abook2mutt.py: * New option -d for abook2mutt.py which prevents it from creating default hooks * Generated hooks don't expect specific defaults anymore - mail2abook.py (formerly alias.py) * Python readline module is not imported any more (hasn't worked anyway :) - abook_wrapper * New wrapper script for calling abook/abook2mutt.py from mutt - cut Thanks to Jean-Sebastien Morisset for his suggestions. Robin -- Robin Sommer* Room 36.1/309 * PGP key 0x7833816E Saarland University * Phone (0681) 302-6544 * http://www.net.uni-sb.de
mutt + pgp not able to encrypt mail???
Hi! I am using mutt+pgp6 to sign and encrypt my email, to securelly communicate with coworkers over the inet. I have just found out that using mutt version 1.3.20i (2001-07-24), compiled with pgp support: +HAVE_PGP I can only sign, but not encrypt e-mail. Whenever I try to send encrypted email mutt asks me for an keyID for the user I am encrypting it to, and when I enter the keyID (given by pgp -kv username) it does nothing, but just repeats the same action... what gives?? I am using pgp6.rc which comes with the mutt package. Can anyone please assist me couse I need this function quite urgent? THX in advance! Bostjan -- [*] Botjan Mller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://neonatus.net/~neonatus [*] [*] PGP key - finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED], RSA id: 0x90178DBD [*] [*] Celular: +386(0)41243189, Powered by Debian GNU/LiNUX - ICQ #:7506644 [*] 43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr fortune: Segmentation violation -- Core dumped PGP signature
mutt, PGP and courier - solved
I applied this patch by Aaron Schrab, and now mutt generates a top-level
Content-Trasfer-Encoding header. This makes courier leave the message
unmolested, and my PGP signatures verify correctly! Thanks Aaron.
--- sendlib.c.dist Tue Dec 5 12:31:21 2000
+++ sendlib.c Tue Dec 5 14:32:25 2000
@@ -433,7 +433,10 @@
fputc ('\n', f);
- if (a-encoding != ENC7BIT)
+ /* Courier MTA will rewrite messages that don't contain an explicit
+ * Content-Transfer-Encoding, breaking PGP/MIME signatures. */
+ if (a-encoding != ENC7BIT
+ || (a-type == TYPEMULTIPART mutt_strcmp(a-subtype, "signed") == 0) )
fprintf(f, "Content-Transfer-Encoding: %s\n", ENCODING (a-encoding));
/* Do NOT add the terminator here!!! */
--
Anand
Re: Mutt PGP.. problem
On 2000-11-24 08:02:35 -0600, Scott Davis wrote: when I cat filename on this FreeBSD box, it is all garbled... nothing readable. Try typing "pgpring -2", and extract the part of the output which looks like it's related to you. -- Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mutt PGP.. problem
Hi! I have installed Pretty Good Privacy 2.6.3i on this FreeBSD box and all went well. I am trying to integrate it into Mutt 1.2.5i, and that seems to go 99% ok. The problem I have is this: I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg' When I go to use Mutt, send mail to myself, and choose to (e)ncrypt the mail, I get the following prompt before it tries to send the mail: 'Enter keyID for [EMAIL PROTECTED]' It wants input here and will not send unless I enter the correct info, which I do not know and don't know where to look. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks in advance! -=*=- Scott A. Davis...[EMAIL PROTECTED] Si vis pacem ...Si vis pacem para bellum "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." --Al Capone (1899-1947)
Re: Mutt PGP.. problem
On 2000-11-24 04:31:12 -0600, Scott Davis wrote: I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg' What's your key ID looking like?
Re: Mutt PGP.. problem
Thomas Roessler filled my mailbox with: I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg' What's your key ID looking like? when I cat filename on this FreeBSD box, it is all garbled... nothing readable. -=*=- Scott A. Davis...[EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, Texas USA ...Si vis pacem para bellum "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." --Al Capone (1899-1947)
Re: FW: Mutt-PGP and PGP602 for Win
On 1999-05-06 18:04:15 +, Andreas Wessel wrote: The person who's mail I can't read uses Eudora (I think). But that shouldn't make a difference??!! I'd suggest you just post one of the encrypted messages, _including_ all MIME headers, to this list. We won't be able to read much about your private communication, after all. :)
Re: FW: Mutt-PGP and PGP602 for Win
Warning Could not process message with given Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=wq9mPyueHGvFACwf; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Re: FW: Mutt-PGP and PGP602 for Win
On 1999-05-06 11:31:01 +, Andreas Wessel wrote: I have the same probelm _and_ I'm using the "pgp-procmail-entry". Works fine with pgpversions 602. But NOT with 602 - That version gives just plaintext... Strange. I'm regularly corresponding with a person who uses 6.0.2i with Lotus Notes, and things just work out fine.
Re: FW: Mutt-PGP and PGP602 for Win
On 1999-05-01 07:58:58 +0200, Erik van der Meulen wrote: I have a problem decoding a message which is sent to me from a Windows machine which uses PGP 602. It uses a RSA key which is ciphered IDEA. In fact, it uses the same key I use now in Mutt, for I am sending this to myself. Mutt does not recognise this as a PGP message and treats it as plain text. Anyone has a clue? Thanks up front! The windows mailer is most probably sending the message in a text/plain envelope. Have a look at doc/PGP-Notes.txt, we explain a procmail recipe to fix such messages there. -- http://home.pages.de/~roessler/ PGP signature
Re: mutt pgp
Andy -- Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's always been. In short, PGP signatures and encrypted text really should, according to RFC 2015 (IIRC), be attachments. In even shorter, mutt folks say "fergit those who can't hack it because they have stupid mail programs" and Just Do It. This topic has come up *many* times -- maybe it should be an autoreply by a robot watching the list ;-) :-D -- David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer http://www.poboxes.com/davidtg/ Note: If poboxes.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* PGP signature
Re: mutt pgp
Thanks, I didn't know about the RFC 2015 (IIRC). But at least I do know now that I am doing right, what (allmost) everybody else is doing wrong :))) Andy On Tue, Jan 19, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote: Andy -- Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's always been. In short, PGP signatures and encrypted text really should, according to RFC 2015 (IIRC), be attachments. In even shorter, mutt folks say "fergit those who can't hack it because they have stupid mail programs" and Just Do It. This topic has come up *many* times -- maybe it should be an autoreply by a robot watching the list ;-) :-D -- David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer http://www.poboxes.com/davidtg/ Note: If poboxes.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh* -- "Nothing can be loved or hated unless it is first understood" Leonardo da Vinci 1452 - 1519
Re: mutt pgp
What I'm getting at is that while Mutt may be doing it right, you can get down off your high horse and help out the people who have to be able to work in a backwards compatible fashion. The current PGP-Notes documentation scratches the surface at best. I figured it out - as I'm sure many others have.. but if you want to be snotty, provide better documentation first. So then, please submit a petter entry for PGP-Notes.txt. I'm sure it would be included at once. Or put it on a website, which could be referred to, whenever the question pops up. If I intented to be snotty to people about it, I would certainly do that. Since I don't intend to be snotty to people about it, I feel that those who are riding their high horses should back up their actions. As time permits, I am actually working on some better notes. But I'm not being rude to people because they can't figure it out for themselves. It took me the better part of 4 hours to get a working configuration that could send and recieve messages in both fashions, as neccessary. And it's pretty messy. -- Joe Rhett Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ISite Services PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/
Re: mutt pgp
SteelOnIce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm... all I want to do is send a plain text message, which contains the pgp message NO ATACHMENTS... In your .muttrc: # For generating old-style clearsigned PGP unMIMEd attachments: macro compose f1 "Fpgp +verbose=0 -fast +clearsig=on\ny" # For generating encrypted and signed PGP unMIMEd attachments: macro compose f2 "Fpgp +verbose=0 -feast +clearsig=on +encrypttoself=on\ny" For receiving email read PGP-Notes.txt and modify your .procmailrc . It works fine. C u l8r. -- ___ Daniel González Gasull __|_|__"Un sólo muerto es mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (o o) ya demasiado." PGP RSA key 1024/EEA93A69 ( - ) -- Nelson Mandela ( . ) ( . ) (_) Hi! I'm Signature Virus 99! Copy me into your signature and join the fun!
Re: mutt pgp
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 04:14:54PM +, SteelOnIce wrote: When I use Mutt together with pgp it attaches my signatures and / or encrypted mails as files... I want the pgp message to be the main message body! How can I change that??? Not at all. Mutt generates MIME-encapsulated PGP messages as defined in RFC 2015. Putting PGP information into a message's body leads to problems with content type and character set tagging, and it leads to problems with software which is MIME, but not PGP aware. Also, when I recive a pgp encrypted mail I can't read it! It shows me the pgp message as the body but doesn't ask for my passphrase... Read doc/PGP-Notes.txt. tlr -- Thomas Roessler · 74a353cc0b19 · dg1ktr · http://home.pages.de/~roessler/ 2048/CE6AC6C1 · 4E 04 F0 BC 72 FF 14 23 44 85 D1 A1 3B B0 73 C1 Hi! I'm Signature Virus 99! Copy me into your signature and join the fun!
