On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:26:49PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > > No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil. > i kind of figured; however, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data handles it by inline signing the message and then signing the attachment separately. it handles encryption the same way. i guess that this would be considered "broken" by today's "standards." i guess if i want mutt to handle things the same way for those of my recipients who have to use outlook, i'm going to have to "fix" mutt or has anyone already done this?
-- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu
msg26731/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
