Anand Buddhdev writes:
> > * Unspecified content-type charset. Courier will provide one.
> >
> > * Unspecified transfer encoding. Courier will calculate the best encoding
> > and use that.
>
> Ok. I've attached the message here. It has a Content-Type charset
> specified. It also specifies a Content-Transfer-Encoding header. Both were
> inserted by mutt. What courier did was not to change the headers, but to
> re-order them, and that caused the signature to become invalid. So, the
> question is, why did courier change the order of the headers when they were
> perfectly valid?
Can't say. The headers in the attached message were rewritten :-)
Let's try this as inlined text/plain, or attach it as
application/octet-stream.
--
Sam
