Hi,
I use GnuPG together with mutt on Debian Etch. I prefer to use
ISO-8859-1 and have these lines in my .muttrc to accomplish that:
set charset="iso-8859-1"
set config_charset="iso-8859-1"
set send_charset="iso-8859-1"
When sending a mail without using GnuPG (by selecting "clear" in mutt'
* Martin Toft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-27 20:06:57 +0100]:
> I use GnuPG together with mutt on Debian Etch. I prefer to use
> ISO-8859-1
Short question: Why?
ISO-8859-1 is a hack and even so common alphabets like cyrillic break it.
So, if you want to stay sane, switch to UTF-8.
My 0,02 EUR
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> When sending a mail without using GnuPG (by selecting "clear" in mutt's
> PGP menu), the above configuration results in the following content type
That is your problem. Clearsigned PGP messages are not well defined.
OpenPGP says that all is UT
Hello Martin,
On Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 20:06:57 +0100, Martin Toft wrote:
> I use GnuPG together with mutt on Debian Etch. I prefer to use
> ISO-8859-1 and have these lines in my .muttrc to accomplish that:
First of all, your Mutt charset setup is quite suboptimal.
Discussing it w
Hello Werner,
On Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 9:17:59 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> Yes there is the Charset armor header but that one is not supported by
> GnuPG because it is a kludge not required since 15 years or so (since
> MIME).
A charsethacked Mutt can make use of this Charset armor
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> If the recipient's mailer supports PGP/MIME, this is of course a way
> better solution than any form of traditional inline PGP. All charsets
> are then cleanly usable, without any hack or guesswork.
>From the major MUAs only Outlook has pro
From the major MUAs only Outlook has problems with PGP/MIME. However,
the GpgOL included in gpg4win 1.1.3 works well although with some
deficies in the user interface. The forthcoming version of GpgOL (as
available in SVN) features a far better integration and also sends
PGP/MIME.
Correct me i
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but GPGOL as currently existing cannot deal
> with PGP/MIME, right?
It can decrypt and verify PGP/MIME but tehre a couple of minor
problems. In fact we use a complete MIME parser here.
The latest GpgOL incarnation doe
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > If the recipient's mailer supports PGP/MIME, this is of course a way
> > better solution than any form of traditional inline PGP. All
> > charsets are then cleanly usable, without a
