At 12:12 +0200 08 Aug 2000, Caster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On pon 07 sie 2000 17:33:40 GMT Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > But the rule that prevents this from happening with multipart messages
> > is necessary, because the modification that is done by that rule will
> > prevent mutt (or any MUA) from dealing with multipart messages. So,
> > it's a tradeoff:
>
> Yes, you're absolutely right. However there must be a solution. Tell me
> how the attachment/MIME mechanizm work. I mean I know generally but
> maybe there is a RFC or something describing the thing? Right now I am
> analyzying Mutt's Content-Type output. I think there is need for a
> script (maybe Perl) that will reformat mails which give the trouble.
> One more thing: do lines like -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- or
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- need to be removed? I mean GPG will
> recognize and skip them?
No, those lines shouldn't be removed. Really, all that needs to be done
is to rewrite the Content-Type: line of the relevant part to something
like that inserted by the procmail rules. It probably wouldn't be all
that difficult to do this with a perl script using the MIME:: modules.
One additional complication is that in this case the signed part also
specifies a character set. Mutt won't currently honor a charset
parameter for application/pgp parts, so some characters may appear
incorrectly.
--
Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/
When we aren't plundering and wreaking havoc,
we speak out on the importance of safe boating.
-- Spider Pirate Captain (The Drywall and Oswald Show #2)
PGP signature
