On 10/17/06, Nicholas Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Ryan Malayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again I must state that one has little to do with > the other. MHTML's > MIME format may not play nice with PGP/MIME's > encapsultation format, > but it didn't *have* to be that way. S/MIME, for > example, seems to > make provisions for playing nicely with other MIME > structures such as > MHTML, as well as arbitrary attachments. What is it about the PGP/MIME spec that makes it not play nicely with HTML email? Or vice versa?
I'm not sure, but it seems no MUA or plug-in I have tried handles it correctly.
I've always assumed that lack of HTML support said more about the crypto crowd's preference for text email than some technical problem, but perhaps I was wrong...
This very well may be the case; it could just be an implementation issue. PGP/MIME seems to be based on RFC1847, which states: ...The first body part may contain any valid MIME content type, labeled accordingly... So, it would seem the "first body part" could be of type multipart/alternative (HTML). But I am unsure; as multipart/alternative is needed in the message header of an HTML email. RFC 1847 requires "multipart/signed" or "multipart/encrytped" in the message header. I think that may be what causes the troubles. Whatever the case, I always seem to have issues with attachments and HTML messages using PGP, but not with S/MIME. Although that may be a result of the limited selection of MUAs and software I use at my company. (Thuderbird, Outlook+GPGOL and Outlook plus the commercial PGP Desktop v9). -- RPM _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
