Suppose I have following signed text with mutt:
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
This is a test message.
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z
I can verify following test by hand:
cat >former <<EOF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
^M
This is a test message.^M
EOF
but not
cat >latter <<EOF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii^M
Content-Disposition: inline^M
^M
This is a test message.^M
EOF
that is, subheader part is not crlf terminated (but the
intervening blank line is).
I tested a few mails signed by mutt from mailing lists. All messages,
as far as I tested, show above characteristics regardless of used mutt
versions.
Am I missing something ?
I'm asking this apparently dumb question since 1) rfc2015 seems to me
suggesting the latter format[1], 2) the latter format mails are, although
minority, floating in the ocean.
[1] rfc2015 section "5. PGP signed data" states
(3) MIME content headers are then added to the body, each ending
with the canonical <CR><LF> sequence.
horio shoichi
