Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:46:15PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > Let me see if I get this straight: ok. > This hypothetical person is capable of installing a PGP plugin for > Outlook, but isn't capable of using it to decrypt an attached file? first a little clarification, i am talking about the gnupg plugin from g-data. i haven't yet played around with the mit pgp plugin for outlook but that is on the list for today. well, the hypothetical person is not hypothetical. he is me. let me see if i can explain. i have to use outlook at work but use mutt at home. this allows me to test sending stuff mutt <-> outlook. so, imho, the hypothetical person is fairly technically savy seeing as it is me. ;-) the problem is i am doing this testing to set up some secure email communication between me and my accountant. i am not sure my accountant is techinically savy enough to go through too many gyrations in order to get what i send her verified/decrypted. > Doesn't it insinuate itself into the right-click menu? i have to say that once you have done some research on public key cryptography and played around with gpg a little, the gnupg plugin for outlook from g-data is quite nice. you get little toolbar icons and the gpa gets installed so key management is gui-ized. all in all, it is nice. i am merely trying to minimize the work my accountant is going to have to go through in order to set this up. btw - thanks to all who replied and helped on this thread. i appreciate it! it looks like the best option is to sign & encrypt my attachments first and then attach it to a cleartext, unsigned email. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26789/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:29:57AM -0700: > > manner. now, as we all know, msft isn't going to fix outlook so if i > want to correspond securly with outlook users, i need to try and > accomodate. PITA but there it is. Let me see if I get this straight: This hypothetical person is capable of installing a PGP plugin for Outlook, but isn't capable of using it to decrypt an attached file? Doesn't it insinuate itself into the right-click menu? msg26785/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 05:05:41PM +, Simon White wrote: > If it dies, it's biology. If it blows up, it's chemistry, and if it > doesn't work, it's physics. ...and if it doesn't work, it's...anyone...anyone...anyone...OUTLOOK! -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26778/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
05-Apr-02 at 09:54, Peter T. Abplanalp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > perhaps a better anology would be i have two locks on my door, one a > combination lock and the other a key lock. if you can open one or the > other you can open my door. now since it is too much trouble for some > people to remember a combination, i give them a key. Yes I agree. You have made a much better analogy than mine. I am lazy, I often come up with half an analogy and wait for a better analogiser to come back and fix it hehe. > > Oh the travesty of Outlook. > > amen. but it is nice if you know nothing else. americans used to > think they had good chocolate but that was only because they hadn't > had swiss chocolate. And of course fresh Belgian chocolate, which can only be consumed in Belgium since it's good for 2 days only. -- [Simon White. vim/mutt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] GIMPS:61.68% see www.mersenne.org] If it dies, it's biology. If it blows up, it's chemistry, and if it doesn't work, it's physics. [Linux user #170823 http://counter.li.org. Home cooked signature rotator.]
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:39:17PM +, Simon White wrote: > Isn't that kinda like saying you have a door with 3 locks, but there are > people who can't be bothered to use 3 keys, so you leave one open anyway > so that those people can come into your secure environment with less than > the required number of keys? ummm. no, i don't think so. i am not compromising my security by accomodating outlook users, i am just changing the manner in which i secure my email. it is secure in both cases. perhaps a better anology would be i have two locks on my door, one a combination lock and the other a key lock. if you can open one or the other you can open my door. now since it is too much trouble for some people to remember a combination, i give them a key. > Oh the travesty of Outlook. amen. but it is nice if you know nothing else. americans used to think they had good chocolate but that was only because they hadn't had swiss chocolate. -peter [american...and swiss] -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26775/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Peter, et al -- ...and then Shawn McMahon said... % % begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700: % > % > mentioned a better/easier way. might you enlighten me? please? % % send-hook . unset pgp_create_traditional ... % Either way will save you keystrokes. ... but, unfortunately, not take care of your current problem. Show us a signed message with a signed attachment that works for outlook (hey, can it even read properly that which it tries to send? :-) and perhaps someone can come up with some macro magic to make mutt do the same thing. It seems to me that a key that attaches a clearsigned version of a file that you go and find rather than just attaching the file might do the trick (and be a bit easier than clearsigning the file in another window and then attaching the result)... HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26773/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
05-Apr-02 at 09:29, Peter T. Abplanalp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > generally speaking, i'd have to say i agree with you; however, the > people who are using outlook, generally speaking, are not very > technical and sometimes have trouble with anything that requires > knowledge of anything other than point-and-click and drag-and-drop. > this makes it difficult for me to correspond with them in a secure > manner. now, as we all know, msft isn't going to fix outlook so if i > want to correspond securly with outlook users, i need to try and > accomodate. PITA but there it is. Isn't that kinda like saying you have a door with 3 locks, but there are people who can't be bothered to use 3 keys, so you leave one open anyway so that those people can come into your secure environment with less than the required number of keys? OK, the security of the communications still holds, but the equipment (the keys here being physical objects, rather than cryptographic keys) is actually at fault. Oh the travesty of Outlook. -- [Simon White. vim/mutt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] GIMPS:61.68% see www.mersenne.org] History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. -- Napoleon Bonaparte [Linux user #170823 http://counter.li.org. Home cooked signature rotator.]
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700: > > curses! am i "foiled again" here with things as they are? btw - you > mentioned a better/easier way. might you enlighten me? please? send-hook . unset pgp_create_traditional send-hook (address_of_crippled_mailer@foo|anotherone@bar) set pgp_create_traditional No need to mess with answering the question every time, just set it automagically. Or, you could change the first line to "set pgp_create_traditional=ask-yes" to default to yes. Either way will save you keystrokes. msg26770/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > > No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to > send an Outlook user a signed email and a patch, and he has to open both > the email and the patch seperately, well, sometimes Microsoft's > stupidity is painful for their users. He should be thankful he doesn't > have to reboot. :-) > generally speaking, i'd have to say i agree with you; however, the people who are using outlook, generally speaking, are not very technical and sometimes have trouble with anything that requires knowledge of anything other than point-and-click and drag-and-drop. this makes it difficult for me to correspond with them in a secure manner. now, as we all know, msft isn't going to fix outlook so if i want to correspond securly with outlook users, i need to try and accomodate. PITA but there it is. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26768/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:12:05AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > Ah; didn't realize that was the problem you were describing. Yes, > that's a limitation of the patch. > > That's what happens when you try to do something that isn't > standardized; different people do it differently. curses! am i "foiled again" here with things as they are? btw - you mentioned a better/easier way. might you enlighten me? please? -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26766/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:10:04AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > He means that he would like for you to send a message in $p_c_t format to > the list for our review. He might even mean that you should send another > with an attachment (hey, why not `mutt -v` and make it useful? :-) > and attempt to turn $p_c_t on for that one as well. ok. here you go. please find mutt -v attached. the problem is, i can't make mutt do p_c_t with an attachment. when there is no attachment, mutt asks to do inline but when there is an attachemnt mutt just does what he wants (whatever that is.) ;-) > Of course. Fortunately, mutts are forgiving even when their owners are > unkind to them, like making them talk outhouse ;-) i know but please don't turn me in to the humane society. generally speaking i am very kind to my mutt. i just figure it is easier for me to train my mutt to do new tricks than it is for outlook people to train outlook. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu Mutt 1.5.0i (2002-01-22) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.2.16-22 (i586) [using ncurses 5.2] Compile options: -DOMAIN -DEBUG -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP -USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL -USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP +HAVE_SMIME -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET ++HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID -HAVE_GETADDRINFO ISPELL="/usr/bin/ispell" SENDMAIL="/usr/sbin/sendmail" MAILPATH="/var/mail" PKGDATADIR="/usr/local/share/mutt" SYSCONFDIR="/usr/local/etc" EXECSHELL="/bin/sh" -MIXMASTER To contact the developers, please mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To report a bug, please use the flea(1) utility. msg26765/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:07:52AM -0500: > > So you can send an attachment to an Outlook user and have the whole thing > be signed and that user can happily read and verify both parts. No. IMHO, Dave shouldn't bother making that work. If you really need to send an Outlook user a signed email and a patch, and he has to open both the email and the patch seperately, well, sometimes Microsoft's stupidity is painful for their users. He should be thankful he doesn't have to reboot. :-) msg26764/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:01:18AM -0700: > > not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email > from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an > inline sig from mutt? or...? I meant an inline sig from Mutt, but it's moot now, since you gave some more information that made the problem clear. msg26763/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:58:21AM -0700: > > that is correct. p_c_t works fine for a simple email message without > any attachments; however, as soon as you add an attachment i think > mutt figures you're gonna send mime anyway so why not do the pgp that > way too. Ah; didn't realize that was the problem you were describing. Yes, that's a limitation of the patch. That's what happens when you try to do something that isn't standardized; different people do it differently. msg26762/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Peter -- ...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said... % % On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:37:33AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: % > There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed. % > Could you answer "yes" on a response to the list, so we can see what % > you're sending out? % % not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email % from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an % inline sig from mutt? or...? He means that he would like for you to send a message in $p_c_t format to the list for our review. He might even mean that you should send another with an attachment (hey, why not `mutt -v` and make it useful? :-) and attempt to turn $p_c_t on for that one as well. % % > Also, are you getting any errors when you start Mutt? % % nope. mutt appears to be a happy camper. Of course. Fortunately, mutts are forgiving even when their owners are unkind to them, like making them talk outhouse ;-) % % -- % Peter Abplanalp % % Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % PGP: pgp.mit.edu :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26761/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Shawn -- ...and then Shawn McMahon said... % % begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500: % > % > I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm % > here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read % > you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments, % > but I think that's a known limitation; Shawn, can you send an attachment % > so that LookOut! can read the whole message smoothly? % % Yes. There is more than one $p_c_t, and he said he was using the dw % patch, which is the one that works for Outlook. Yes, I know of both Shane's and Dale's (I helped get the two talking :-) and know that Shane has withdrawn his now that Dale's provides a complete superset of functionality. So you can send an attachment to an Outlook user and have the whole thing be signed and that user can happily read and verify both parts. Can you include such a message in a reply so that I can look at it? I still don't get how Dale's $p_c_t will do that; I don't think I've been able to duplicate your success. TIA & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26760/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:37:33AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed. > Could you answer "yes" on a response to the list, so we can see what > you're sending out? not sure what you mean here. do you want me to send a simple email from outlook or mutt? if mutt, does this suffice? or do you mean an inline sig from mutt? or...? > Also, are you getting any errors when you start Mutt? nope. mutt appears to be a happy camper. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26759/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm > here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read > you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments, > but I think that's a known limitation; Shawn, can you send an attachment > so that LookOut! can read the whole message smoothly? that is correct. p_c_t works fine for a simple email message without any attachments; however, as soon as you add an attachment i think mutt figures you're gonna send mime anyway so why not do the pgp that way too. this is not the way outlook expects things. when i send things the other way (outlook -> mutt) with an attachment, mutt shows me an inline signed email with an attachment that is signed seperately. when i send things mutt -> outlook with an attachment, outlook shows a blank message with 2 attachments. the first attachment is named something weird and contains the text "Version: 1" and a blank line. the second is named msg.asc and can be decrypted. before decryption it contains a PGP Message block. after decryption it contains the actual message that was sent by mutt beginning with: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="345knbkljh" Content-Disposition: inline the first part is: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable and it is the email message. the second part is: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="db.sql" and it is the attachment. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26758/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
* Robert Conde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.04 20:07 -0500]: > Is there anything wrong with hitting F in the compose menu and filtering > the message through the "gpg --clearsign" command? Nothing at all. It leaves the other parts untouched though, which is not (I don't think) desired in this case. I used this method until CVS got changed to do something reasonable with p_c_t. -- http://www.epic.org - Electronic Privacy Information Center msg26757/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David T-G said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:42AM -0500: > > I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm > here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read > you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments, > but I think that's a known limitation; Shawn, can you send an attachment > so that LookOut! can read the whole message smoothly? Yes. There is more than one $p_c_t, and he said he was using the dw patch, which is the one that works for Outlook. msg26756/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 07:29:16AM -0700: > > it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the > p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want > to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook people. There's a better way, but more on that after we get your problem fixed. Could you answer "yes" on a response to the list, so we can see what you're sending out? Also, are you getting any errors when you start Mutt? msg26755/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what David Collantes said on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:07:19AM -0500: > I totally agree with you. _Communicate_, that is the key word. You signed that with S/MIME, with which OE also has a problem, agreeing with someone whose position was basically "don't use PGP/MIME because Outlook and Outlook Express have a problem with it." msg26754/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Peter, et al -- ...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said... % % On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:22:19AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: % > % > It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it? I wondered about this the last time but didn't jump in, but since I'm here now... Peter, does $p_c_t work for you for normal messages? I read you to say that it doesn't work the way outhouse expects for attachments, but I think that's a known limitation; Shawn, can you send an attachment so that LookOut! can read the whole message smoothly? % % it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the % p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want % to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook people. Right. % ... % set pgp_autosign = yes ... % send-hook . set pgp_autosign % send-hook [EMAIL PROTECTED] unset pgp_autosign FWIF your send-hook will always override your static set and so you can leave that top line out. % % -- % Peter Abplanalp % % Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % PGP: pgp.mit.edu HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26752/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On 04-04-2002 at 20:39 EST, Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i've said it before, and i'll say it again... the purpose of email (as far > as i'm concerned) is first and foremost to *communicate* with other I totally agree with you. _Communicate_, that is the key word. Cheers, -- David Collantes - http://www.bus.ucf.edu/david/ College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:22:19AM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > > It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it? > it is my understanding that what is necessary to activate it is the p_c_t variable which i have set to ask-no because in most cases i want to do pgp/mime but be able to pick traditional for my outlook people. here are the relevant muttrc entries (i think): set pgp_timeout = set pgp_autosign = yes set pgp_replyencrypt = yes set pgp_replysign = yes set pgp_replysignencrypted = yes set pgp_create_traditional = ask-no send-hook . set pgp_autosign send-hook [EMAIL PROTECTED] unset pgp_autosign -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26750/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:44:22PM -0700: > > ok, i checked the archives and what i found was that people were > talking about dale's p_c_t patch. that does not do what outlook is > expecting w.r.t. attachments. It does when I use it. What did you put in your .muttrc to activate it? msg26749/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:02:59PM -0800: > > taking the attitude of "i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" > only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered. Look where it got the Internet. Sticking to documented RFCs, instead of the defacto standards of AOL and Compuserve and Fidonet, got us where we are today. It's not "I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong". It's "I'm one man, the RFCs are readable by everybody." Couple that with the fact that any mailer that is MIME-compliant can deal with PGP/MIME messages properly, even if they don't have PGP, and the choice seems clear. Ok, a lot of people are using an MUA that is *NOT* MIME-compliant; more people were using Compuserve and Fidonet when RFC 821 was written, to, and yet we stuck to our guns. Three years later, AOL came along, and we expected them to conform to RFCs if they wanted to talk to us. For a while, they tried to avoid it, but in the end, standards won out. RFC 1521 is 8.5 years old. People who choose not to follow it are on their own, by choice. That's their right. More power to 'em. Glad so many of 'em live in countries where they get to make stupid choices like that. That doesn't mean I have to violate standards to accomodate them. I violate the standard in exactly one place; a mailing list where the messages get nuked if they're MIME. I remain there because I like the list. I sign my messages inline because it follows the rules and annoys people, which may cause them to bitch to the moderator to allow MIME. Inline sigs, in my experience, annoy Outlook and Outlook Express users even more than PGP/MIME sigs. Outlook Express even has trouble with S/MIME, which Microsoft supports! Communication? I think I'm communicating more to the OE users by making them jump through hoops to read perfectly legitimate standard mail than I would by allowing Microsoft to drive my choices intead of RFCs. msg26748/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:54:26PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote: > begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700: > > 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? > > Yes. There's a patch, and it's already in the latest CVS versions. > > See the archives; it's been discussed several times in the last week, > and at least once today. ok, i checked the archives and what i found was that people were talking about dale's p_c_t patch. that does not do what outlook is expecting w.r.t. attachments. i also got the cvs version and built that. it behaves like 1.3.28 with dale's patch out-of-the-box; however, that is not doing what outlook expects w.r.t. attachments either. am i missing something? when i send stuff from outlook, i think it first clearsigns the email message and then clearsigns the attachment and then creates a mime message. when my mutt gets a hold of it, it checks the inline sig and then i have to save off the attachment which i can then gpg --verify from the command line. when i send it from my mutt, if there is an attachment, i no longer get the send inline sig prompt (which i get on non-attachment emails because i have p_c_t set to ask-no) and mutt sends the message of as pgp/mime, i'm guessing. speaking of which, how can i check this w/ outlook? so i can see how the pgp/mime stuff is easier but i still need to communicate with quite a few outlook people so i'd like for my mutt to give me that option. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26740/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Jeremy, et al --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% 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:
Thanks; that's always helpful!
%
...
%
% Both of these ("ascii-pgp" and S/MIME) are present in the CVS head
...
% 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.
I'd love to see that.
%
% 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.
Oh, great.
% 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.
I knew that many sample config sites and a couple of patch sites were
available from the mutt page, but actually didn't realize that so much
contributed stuff was available. Since these feature patches aren't
fixes to be rolled in but are separate, I didn't realize they'd be linked
from the main site.
%
% 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.
Correct.
Thanks again!
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg26738/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > 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? whatever anyone tells you here, most people who don't use mutt or evolution (ie a large percentage of people who use PGP) don't use PGP/MIME. PGP/MIME is a "standard", but it's not "standard", if that makes sense. there are constant debates on this, so i'm going to shut my mouth right now. personally, the only time i use PGP/MIME is if i know that someone is able to deal with it or prefers that style. taking the attitude of "i'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" only gets you so far... at least when you're already way outnumbered. i've said it before, and i'll say it again... the purpose of email (as far as i'm concerned) is first and foremost to *communicate* with other people. very few people that i'm interested in communicating with use mutt (no offense intended to anyone here). -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:49:15PM -0700: > 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? Yes. There's a patch, and it's already in the latest CVS versions. See the archives; it's been discussed several times in the last week, and at least once today. msg26732/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
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/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:06:14PM -0700: > > a mime anyway so why not just add a pgp/mime part? is it even > possible to send an application/pgp message with an attachment? No. That's one reason inline signatures are evil. msg26729/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is there anything wrong with hitting F in the compose menu and filtering the message through the "gpg --clearsign" command? - -R On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > > > > given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can > > do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is > > that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is > > using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data > > gnu-plugin. is there a way to get mutt to use ascii armor and will > > that be viewable by my outlook user? will the ascii armor work for > > encryption as well? > > you want to use pgp_create_traditional, but you want the content type to > be set as ascii text. > > so basically, you would need to run either 1.2.5 or 1.3.x with the > pgp_outlook_compat patch (i think there's a version for 1.2.5, which it > looks like you're running currently), or the cvs version, which (as you > can see) can create a traditional message in a way that will be read by > MUAs other than mutt. > > - -- > Will Yardley > input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: public key: http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc > > iD8DBQE8rMqhswHW5vg5XAIRAi87AJ0TfPST/Tb/iXZEpBJ4Wm92HHF+kACfXoZG > E07ZQlgV/QHK3uAjv77xpms= > =a01s > -END PGP SIGNATURE- - -- Robert S Conde PGP Key: 0xE94C96E3 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8rPilRDpbEulMluMRAp1NAJ4naWeX6TL3N1I6vxKb20YlACGe5wCeJEjT T3hU6C3hTefMrffq2xjhQpE= =NeCV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
...David T-G made some exceleent suggestions... ok, i got mutt 1.3.28, put dale's patch over it, compiled and installed it. now my outlook can read the stuff. thanks! however, if i am working without any attachments everything works fine but as soon as i add an attachemnt, i no longer get the send application/pgp ([n]/y): prompt and mutt sends the message without asking me. is this because mutt figures if i have an attachmenti'm going to send a mime anyway so why not just add a pgp/mime part? is it even possible to send an application/pgp message with an attachment? -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26726/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
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/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
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. yup - for attachments you'd need to use s/mime or PGP/MIME. traditionally signed messages are useful in their own ways though - they're neater in mailing list archives, can be checked later more easily (since you can just copy the text into a text file and verify it), and are more widely readable. personally, i like having the option to do both. 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. 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. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Robert -- ...and then Robert Conde said... % % Where can I get that pgp_outlook_compat patch? mutt.org has a link to % ftp.cm.nu, but I can't access it. Is there somewhere else I can get it? See my reply, in this thread, to Peter and then surf over to http://mutt.justpickone.org/ and dig in. % % -R HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26710/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Peter -- ...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said... % % On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: % > Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: ... % > > that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is % > > using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data ... % > % > so basically, you would need to run either 1.2.5 or 1.3.x with the Either Shane Wegener's $p_o_c patch or Dale Wooledge's pgp-traditional patch, as I understand it, though I have not yet run the full gamut of tests under 1.3.28 to know for sure. I'm almost certain that Dale's patch let's you just set $pgp_create_traditional and not have to worry about $p_o_c and yet still talk with LookOut! successfully. % > pgp_outlook_compat patch (i think there's a version for 1.2.5, which it BTW, since you are running 1.2.5 you ought to upgrade to 1.2.5.1, sans security hole, and so you might as well go to 1.3.28 anyway. % > looks like you're running currently), or the cvs version, which (as you % > can see) can create a traditional message in a way that will be read by % > MUAs other than mutt. % % 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. You can search through the archives for sw.pgp_outlook_compat and/or dw.pgp-traditional, since they were both posted to mutt-users, or you can surf over to http://mutt.justpickone.org/ and look in the cocktail directory for Dale's and further under the Old directory for Shane's. While you're there, you can check my 00-Sources file and probably find each of their URLs. % % if i have an email to which i add an attachement and then choose the % encrypt and sign options with pgp_create_traditional, will the A final possibility is a macro in the compose menu to manually sign and/or encrypt the message before you send it. You can find some discussion on the subject with serach terms like "pgp + macro + davidtg" because I remember taking part in a few of them. The idea lives on as the only alternative for some because ... % attachement be encrypted as well or must i encrypt and sign it by % itself? my guess is the latter as that appears to be why people are % now moving (flame material, i know) towards the pgp/mime method. ... 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. % % -- % Peter Abplanalp % % Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] % PGP: pgp.mit.edu HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26709/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
Where can I get that pgp_outlook_compat patch? mutt.org has a link to ftp.cm.nu, but I can't access it. Is there somewhere else I can get it? -R On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > > > > given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can > > do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is > > that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is > > using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data > > gnu-plugin. is there a way to get mutt to use ascii armor and will > > that be viewable by my outlook user? will the ascii armor work for > > encryption as well? > > you want to use pgp_create_traditional, but you want the content type to > be set as ascii text. > > so basically, you would need to run either 1.2.5 or 1.3.x with the > pgp_outlook_compat patch (i think there's a version for 1.2.5, which it > looks like you're running currently), or the cvs version, which (as you > can see) can create a traditional message in a way that will be read by > MUAs other than mutt. > > -- > Will Yardley > input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . > -- Robert S Conde PGP Key: 0xE94C96E3 msg26706/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
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). -- Bruno
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:50:25PM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > > > > given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can > > do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is > > that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is > > using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data > > gnu-plugin. is there a way to get mutt to use ascii armor and will > > that be viewable by my outlook user? will the ascii armor work for > > encryption as well? > > you want to use pgp_create_traditional, but you want the content type to > be set as ascii text. > > so basically, you would need to run either 1.2.5 or 1.3.x with the > pgp_outlook_compat patch (i think there's a version for 1.2.5, which it > looks like you're running currently), or the cvs version, which (as you > can see) can create a traditional message in a way that will be read by > MUAs other than mutt. excellent, thanks for the help! i'll look around for the patch, mutt.org i'm thinking. if i have an email to which i add an attachement and then choose the encrypt and sign options with pgp_create_traditional, will the attachement be encrypted as well or must i encrypt and sign it by itself? my guess is the latter as that appears to be why people are now moving (flame material, i know) towards the pgp/mime method. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26703/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnupg signing w/ mutt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > > given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can > do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is > that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is > using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data > gnu-plugin. is there a way to get mutt to use ascii armor and will > that be viewable by my outlook user? will the ascii armor work for > encryption as well? you want to use pgp_create_traditional, but you want the content type to be set as ascii text. so basically, you would need to run either 1.2.5 or 1.3.x with the pgp_outlook_compat patch (i think there's a version for 1.2.5, which it looks like you're running currently), or the cvs version, which (as you can see) can create a traditional message in a way that will be read by MUAs other than mutt. - -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: public key: http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/gpg.asc iD8DBQE8rMqhswHW5vg5XAIRAi87AJ0TfPST/Tb/iXZEpBJ4Wm92HHF+kACfXoZG E07ZQlgV/QHK3uAjv77xpms= =a01s -END PGP SIGNATURE-
gnupg signing w/ mutt
ok, i've spent a number of hours over the last two days going over the list archives for mutt and gnupg reading up on the conventions for signing messages. 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? given the above, i know mutt handles pgp/mime natively and that it can do application/pgp with the pgp_create_traditional. my problem is that neither of these formats appears to work if the recipient is using outlook. btw - the outlook is set up to use the g-data gnu-plugin. is there a way to get mutt to use ascii armor and will that be viewable by my outlook user? will the ascii armor work for encryption as well? if you care, i am trying to set up a secure email route route from me to my accountant who uses outlook. can anyone give me some pointers for setting mutt/gnupg up to work with an outlook user? thanks. -- Peter Abplanalp Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg26697/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
