I know most of these things were already said, but some of it's speculation and the complete answers may not be clear, so a bit of clarification:
On Apr 04, Bruno Postle [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Thu 04-Apr-2002 at 02:34:50PM -0700, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
> > it is now my understanding that there are 3 ways to sign a message:
> > pgp/mime, ascii armor, and application/pgp. i'm not certain on the
> > terminology for the last two or even that there is a difference
> > between them. might someone enlighten me?
>
> Your understanding is pretty much correct, and Will has given you the
> mutt solution for communicating via ascii-pgp with Outlook (this
> involves a patch).
>
> For sending signed/encrypted messages to Outlook you might want to also
> look at the alternative s/mime system (also a mutt patch) or you can
> ascii pgp encrypt/sign the body of your mail in your editor (ie. outside
> of mutt altogether).
Both of these ("ascii-pgp" and S/MIME) are present in the CVS head
development branch without any special patches. That branch is very much
in the early stages of development, though, so a lot of things still need
working out, shaking down, and fixing. If you have a lot of interest in
this stuff head on over to mutt-dev and grab a CVS copy and help out with
it. It might make sense for someone to backport the CVS "ascii-pgp" stuff
as a new version of that patch for 1.2/1.3/1.4 as well, since it's solved
differently there then in the other available patches.
On Apr 04, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> ...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said...
> % excellent, thanks for the help! i'll look around for the patch,
> % mutt.org i'm thinking.
>
> Actually, probably not; I haven't looked there recently to see what patch
> contributors are listed, but Shane's and Dale's patches are pure feature
> and aren't part of the official mutt package.
No, they're both linked from the patches section on www.mutt.org.
Everything in that section is stuff that isn't part of the official mutt
package so I'm not sure what kind of distinction you were trying to make.
Someone mentioned Shane's link there wasn't working; it works for me but it
takes a good while. He hasn't provided me with any updated link that I
see... anyway my understanding is that Dale's patch superseeded Shane's for
most people.
On Apr 04, Will Yardley [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David T-G wrote:
> > ... that's my understanding as well. $p_c_t will only work if you have
> > no attachments and use us-ascii characters, or at least that's the way
> > it's been through 1.3.x so far.
...
> mutt 1.5.0 (cvs version) does attempt to allow use of non us-ascii
> characters (using utf encoding as i understand it), but i've had
> inconsistent results so far.
Correct. TLR is trying to get that working but it's rather uncharted
territory so it's definitely a work in progress.
> the cvs version also adds an 'x-mutt-action' or something of the sort to
> the content type, so that other people using mutt (well people using a
> version of mutt that supports this, at least) won't have to do anything
> special to verify the message.
Yeah... I think he broke this back down to be 'x-pgp-action' so it's more
generic.
msg26714/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
