Stefan Bauer via Mailman-Users writes:
> More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with
> that?
To add to what Mark says, I would say not at all. I would consider
broken S/MIME signatures to be a bug, because Mailman should be
treating the multipart/signed *part* as a block,
On 12/2/19 12:44 AM, Stefan Bauer via Mailman-Users wrote:
>
> More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with that? We do
> not want to send out "broken" mails. What is best practice?
This reply is signed. I don't think the sig will be broken.
> Removing the s/mime part seems
Hi,
thank you for mailman!
More and more mails contain s/mime signatures. How to deal with that? We do not
want to send out "broken" mails. What is best practice?
Removing the s/mime part seems right, but how to do that? pass_mime_types could
help, but
removing multipart (and specifyi