On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 10:16, Jason Frisvold wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 10:03, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:26, Jason Frisvold wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > > > I've been using Evolution for a short time now and it seems to be a > > > great product. I have a problem I would like to solve, though. I use > > > GPG to sign my emails. I'd like to be able to sign them and have a user > > > with a windows machine and PGP be able to verify the signature. > > > However, PGP doesn't seem to be able to recognize the GPG signature. > > > > how so? > > Well, we use Microsoft Exchange as the Mail server and Outlook as the > client. Outlook sees the message itself, but the GPG signature arrives > as an attachment (signature.asc) ...
ah, that's because we follow the PGP/MIME specification (see http://www.ietf.org/rfcs/rfc3156.txt for more info). It's been requested a number of times that we support the inline-pgp kludge a number of times. > > I have been very unsuccessful in forcing it to not attach... ah, yea - you can't. > I was > under the impression that the signature should be ascii... it is :-) > Any idea why > it's showing up as an attachment? yea, we create a detached signature and use the original text part as one part of the multipart/signed and the ascii-armoured signature block as the second (this is what rfc3156 demands). > > > no, but what parameters would you call gpg with different from what we > > already do? > > Not sure yet .. was wondering so I could start playing with the > parameters in an effort to get this to work in an expected manner. ok, so changing the options won't actually work. > > > we don't tell gpg to use any gpg.conf file, but gpg does still check > > it's own config settings in ~/.gnupg/options if that is what you mean? > > Yes, that's basically what I mean ... Apparently GPG changed since > 1.0.7 (which is what RH8.0 ships with) and is supposed to now use a > gpg.conf file rather than options. Although, it still read options if > it's there... ah, right. > > > not really, no. other than "Always trust" which sends the --always-trust > > option to gpg. > > *nod* > > > because gpg implements the Pretty Good Privacy specification. the name > > wasn't chosen by which executable it runs, but rather the specification > > it implements. > > Oh, ok ... :) Was just curious... You have a FAQ question explicitly > stating that Evolution no longer supports PGP, but still call it PGP > within the program ... Just a little confusing... I get the point of > it though... yea, the FAQ should probably be more clear and say that we no longer support "NAi's PGP implementations" or something such as that. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
