-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...and then Jussi Ekholm said... >> Morning. > > Hiya!
Hello, David! :-) > 1) mutt 1.4 and earlier required a patch (Aaron(?) wrote an early > one and then Dale wrote the one that replaced it) to tweak > $pgp_create_traditional so that it would twist and bend to suit > Outhouse, but 1.5 and up now writes for LookOut! without > modification. What about this scenario: I send an email, which is traditionally signed, from Mutt 1.5.1i to a person who uses Mutt 1.4i. In this one particular case, scandinavian characters (äöå) were all messed up in his Mutt (1.4i) when he received my email. Is this "known"? Doesn't 1.4i understand the inline-signed mails from 1.5.1? At least in this case, the scands were messed up badly; at least ``ä'' showed up as ``Aþ'' and such forth. I wouldn't have been amazed if the MUA in that other end would've been Outhouse but it is Mutt! Badly configured one, then? > 2) You shouldn't need the S macro anymore because you can turn > $p_c_t on and off. [And I see that you've had your sig delimiter > escaping answered.] Note, though, that $p_c_t will not work for > non-ASCII content or attachments; piping the whole message thru a > macro is the only way to sign and/or encrypt the attachments. Noted, thanks! > 3) Finally, this is something of a religious issue, so you'll have > to pray and come up with your own direction ;-) I use MIME sig > almost all of the time (I'll rarely sign in-line or even more rarely > not sign at all) even though I know that it means that some folks > have a challenge wrapping their teeth around it; most of them > wouldn't be happy with an in-line sig any more than with a MIME sig > so it doesn't really matter there. Arguments regarding why we > should turn on $p_c_t are certainly not invalid, though they haven't > been enough to sway me yet. I've come to use $pgp_create_traditional, just because people with crappy email clients could read my mail without much trouble. Although, it's now proved, that also people with *non-crappy* MUAs can see crappy looking email, if I've signed it traditionally. But I guess it's matter of configuration - either in my end, or more likely in that other end (referring to the particular case I mention above). My traditionally signed mails show up correctly, right? - -- Jussi Ekholm -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9S94TAtEARxQQCB4RAljYAKDR6ZuwOxwHcqDwiB4kgHCAs9NWMQCgq4TI ugZcnT1SBziRkc35cW13d9s= =QYCt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
