I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
between PGP/MIME and Outlook et al that refuse to show signed messages.
They apparently know enough MIME to recognize that they can't handle
"multipart/signed" and don't look inside for the text/plain part. I
wonder if a separate u
Alan --
...and then Alan Batie said...
%
% I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
In addition to what Sven has provided, note that $p_c_t requires an
additional patch up through v1.4 to really work seamlessly with Outhouse;
in the 1.5 tree that patch has been merged i
I use the mailcrypt library from within Emacs to clear sign a regular
text message for outlook folks. I also try and remind them when I can
about using a more standards compliant email client :->.
It has come to my attention...
...that Alan Batie said on Monday, Aug 19 2002:
> I was wondering if
> yes - someone ought to tell the creators or outlook about RFC2015..
It would help if they cared about interoperating...
> so i think you should upgrade. ;-)
apparently ;-)
I'm actually using check-traditional now, so I guess I'll break down
and send it also...
> In addition to what Sven ha
Hi all
When I pick up mails using Outlook I get 2 attachments. One containing
my email message and the other the pgp signiture.
I was told that the pgp-outlook patch would correct this but I'm not
having any luck.
What I'm looking for is someone that has maybe applied this patch to
Thus spake Nick Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> When I pick up mails using Outlook I get 2 attachments. One containing
> my email message and the other the pgp signiture.
>
> I was told that the pgp-outlook patch would correct this but I'm not
> having any luck.
>
&g
Nick --
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% Hi all
% When I pick up mails using Outlook I get 2 attachments. One containing
% my email message and the other the pgp signiture.
Right.
%
% I was told that the pgp-outlook patch would correct this but I'm not
% having any luck.
You ha
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020108 18:18]:
> Nick --
>
> ...and then Nick Wilson said...
> %
> % Hi all
> % When I pick up mails using Outlook I get 2 attachments. One containing
> % my email message and the other the pgp signiture.
>
> Right.
>
Thus spake Nick Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> As I'm sure you can see I'm really not that expert at
> compiling/patching and generally fiddling around so if there is a
> simple all-in-one idiots way to get all I need then let me have at it!
>
> I'd appreciate your comments on the difference betw
achments. One containing
> > % my email message and the other the pgp signiture.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >
> > %
> > % I was told that the pgp-outlook patch would correct this but I'm not
> > % having any luck.
> >
> > You have to b
Jonathan Irving wrote:
>
> It's still an application/pgp message.
i've proposed to the dev list that this be changed before the next full
release. it seems silly to cling to a standard that was withdrawn, and
that no other MUAs take advantage of / can read.
since pgp/mime is the 'standard', a
Nick --
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020108 18:18]:
% >
% > ...and then Nick Wilson said...
% > %
% > % I was told that the pgp-outlook patch would correct this but I'm not
% > % having any luck.
% >
% > You have to
At this point I have to agree with this sentiment. After six years, we are
really no furthur to the point of OpenPGP/MIME acceptance. I've personally
taken to just using a macro in VIM to invoke gpg messages because I have
to deal with a large number of Outlook users. I endorse changing
pgp_cre
Will, et al --
...and then Will Yardley said...
%
% Jonathan Irving wrote:
% >
% > It's still an application/pgp message.
%
% i've proposed to the dev list that this be changed before the next full
% release. it seems silly to cling to a standard that was withdrawn, and
% that no other MUAs
At 10:24 AM 1/8/2002 -0800, Will Yardley wrote and esj rearranged:
>it's going to be difficult to gain more widespread adoption for the
>OpenPGP standards on windows until someone makes an easy to use (and
>install) version of GnuPG for 'doze, and until someone makes a plugin
>for Outlook Express
> % As I'm sure you can see I'm really not that expert at compiling/patching
> % and generally fiddling around so if there is a simple all-in-one idiots
> % way to get all I need then let me have at it!
>
> I'm workin' on it :-) You could also grab the -05 tar file from the
> clean directory and
> it's going to be difficult to gain more widespread adoption for the
> OpenPGP standards on windows until someone makes an easy to use (and
> install) version of GnuPG for 'doze, and until someone makes a plugin
> for Outlook Express for it.
>
> so... in the meantime, i think we need to make our
Thus spake Michael Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I endorse changing pgp_create_traditional such that for text/plain
> messages it doesn't alter the content-type.
So you're saying to make the Outlook patch standard? I wasn't aware
that application/pgp-whatever was withdrawn. If that's the case,
Nick --
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% > % As I'm sure you can see I'm really not that expert at compiling/patching
% > % and generally fiddling around so if there is a simple all-in-one idiots
% > % way to get all I need then let me have at it!
% >
% > I'm workin' on it :-) You could als
This would not affect the PGP/MIME support at all. It will continue to
function as it always has. I just don't think there is any value in
continuing to label application/pgp messages: you should either use PGP/MIME
or just clearsign the message without changing the content-type.
me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> % > I'm workin' on it :-) You could also grab the -05 tar file from the
> % > clean directory and un-tar and then configure and make, but you'd get
> % > all of the rest of my patches, too ;-)
Well, unless you're going to tell me this message is b
Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08 Jan 2002 21:35 +0100]:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> [body of message here]
>
> [sig here]
>
> It's supposed to just be signed. Is there a need for that top bit?
The "digital signature" is, I believe, a SHA1 hash of the message
co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The "digital signature" is, I believe, a SHA1 hash of the message
> content, encrypted using your private key. The hash is a
> checksum; the
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> is important to recompute the checksum for verification.
>
>
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Elkins said...
%
% This would not affect the PGP/MIME support at all. It will continue to
Oh, no; of course not.
% function as it always has. I just don't think there is any value in
% continuing to label application/pgp messages: you should either use
* Justin R. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 08. 2002 12:05]:
[ snipped query about pgp_outlook_compat ]
> On a somewhat related note, for anyone who didn't know, Debian for a few
> versions now has supported this patch already in the sid package.
When I was using 1.3.24 in woody it supported t
* Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-19 20:12]:
> I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
> between PGP/MIME and Outlook et al that refuse to show signed messages.
yes - someone ought to tell the creators or outlook about RFC2015..
> They apparently know enough MIM
Hi Mutt & PGP users,
hello to the Mutt developers,
nobody seems to notice that not only Outlook gets confused by
application/pgp messages -- Pine cannot handle them, too!
That means that with an unpatched Mutt it is impossible to create
PGP signed or encrypted emails for Outlook or Pine users, e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* and then on 09-01-02 13:03 Cristian said
> All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
> concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
> the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how pgp_create_traditio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:56:53PM +0100, Cristian wrote:
>
> I think this issue is a strong point in favour of ME's suggestion:
>
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:40:53AM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote:
> > At this point I have to agree with this sentimen
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 07:27:20AM -0500, Ken Wahl wrote:
>
> A gentleman in news:comp.mail.mutt posted these Vim bindings a couple of
> days ago which allow you to (d)encrypt, clearsign, or both directly in Vim.
> Thereby keeping the text/plain mime-type. Might this be a temporary
> workaround,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* On 09-01-02 at 14:03
* John Perry said
> I really hope this happens. The application/pgp MIME type is ok
> but it's ahead of it's time. I too use a macro in Vim to handle GPG. It
> would be great if Mutt itself would use text/plain.
Th
ere are currently two approaches to creating widely
compatible PGP messages: applying the ``PGP Outlook compatibility
patch'' (a misnomer!) or invoking PGP outside of Mutt (using an
editor or a Mutt pipe macro).
I suggest renaming the patch to ``PGP compatibility patch'', and
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:06:06PM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote:
>
> * On 09-01-02 at 14:03
> * John Perry said
>
> > I really hope this happens. The application/pgp MIME type is ok
> > but it's ahead of it's time. I too use a macro in Vim to handle GPG. It
> > would be great if Mutt itself
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* On 09-01-02 at 15:05
* John Perry said
> Did I miss a patch for this? Guess I was reading my mail too fast. Can
> someone point me to it?
Hi
I hope were talking about the same thing, I'm very new to mutt.
I mean the pgp_outlook_compat patch (
On Jan 09, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
> > concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
> > the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how pgp_create_traditional is set.
> >
> > Time for a change
Jeremy --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% On Jan 09, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
% > > All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
% > > concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
% > > the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how p
On Jan 09, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> ...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
> % So have any of you guys filed this as an actual bug against mutt yet?
> % Talking about it in the mailing lists is a lot less guaranteed to be seen,
> % to say the least.
>
> No, we leave that up to people wh
Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09 Jan 2002 15:08 +0100]:
> * On 09-01-02 at 15:05
> * John Perry said
>
> > Did I miss a patch for this? Guess I was reading my mail too fast. Can
> > someone point me to it?
> Hi
> I hope were talking about the same thing, I'm very new to mutt.
> I mean the
of the ``PGP Outlook compatibility
patch'' (which I call ``PGP compatibility patch'').
What has confused a few people is the fact that the patch is effective
only if both pgp_outlook_compat and pgp_create_traditional are set.
> The proposal is to dump application/pgp, and m
g. Setting the mime type to text/plain instead of
> application/pgp is the very purpose of the ``PGP Outlook compatibility
> patch'' (which I call ``PGP compatibility patch'').
>
> What has confused a few people is the fact that the patch is effective
> only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* On 10-01-02 at 08:11
* Cristian said
> This is just wrong. Setting the mime type to text/plain instead of
> application/pgp is the very purpose of the ``PGP Outlook compatibility
> patch'' (which I call ``PGP
Jeremy, et al --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% On Jan 09, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
% > ...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
% > % So have any of you guys filed this as an actual bug against mutt yet?
...
% > Or at least I figured that "someone else would do it", particularly s
[CC'd to mutt-dev b/c of attached patch, I'm not on mutt-dev, so please
CC me in replies]
Cristian wrote:
> What has confused a few people is the fact that the patch is effective
> only if both pgp_outlook_compat and pgp_create_traditional are set.
>
> > The proposal is to dump application/pgp,
Viktor --
...and then Viktor Rosenfeld said...
%
% [CC'd to mutt-dev b/c of attached patch, I'm not on mutt-dev, so please
% CC me in replies]
I trust that's not required for mutt-users...
%
% Cristian wrote:
%
% > What has confused a few people is the fact that the patch is effective
% > o
Hi David,
David T-G wrote:
> How, however, is the proposed behavior (making $p_c_t generate a
> text/plain instead of an application/pgp message) different from what we
> have now with $p_c_t and $p_o_c? Note that I don't say that it fixes the
> problem you bring up, but it will fix the problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Viktor,
I agree with everything you say (though I do hope the story about
rebinding the y-key was a joke). Your patch is important for the
wide-spread use of PGP in non-english communication.
I just checked that with your patch, I can finally use Mutt to sign
Hi Christian,
> I agree with everything you say (though I do hope the story about
> rebinding the y-key was a joke). Your patch is important for the
> wide-spread use of PGP in non-english communication.
Why? It's the best I could come up with.
> I just checked that with your patch, I can fi
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 04:27:34PM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> I just tried (piping your email direct into GPG), and got this:
>
> gpg: CRC error; 947beb - dc3947
> gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
>
> So something still needs some more work. (I'm usi
On 020112, at 16:27:34, Paul Walker wrote
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:58:54AM +0100, Cristian wrote:
> > This Email is signed the same way as described above. So you can try
> > to verify it with whatever you use.
>
> I just tried (piping your email direct into GPG), and got this:
>
> gpg: CRC
Cristian wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 04:27:34PM +, Paul Walker wrote:
> > I just tried (piping your email direct into GPG), and got this:
> >
> > gpg: CRC error; 947beb - dc3947
> > gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
> >
> > So something still
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:58:54AM +0100, Cristian wrote:
> This Email is signed the same way as described above. So you can try
> to verify it with whatever you use.
I don't know about PGP/Outlook, but I just tried (piping your email direct
into GPG), and got this:
gpg: CRC er
On 12-Jan-2002 19:08 Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
|
| One thing though: Somewhere the following header is created:
|
| Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.pgp"
|
| This causes Outlook to show an attachment where there obviously is
| none. Could this be safely ommited?
Viktor, I wa
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:46:36PM -0500, Dale Woolridge wrote:
> On 12-Jan-2002 19:08 Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> |
> | One thing though: Somewhere the following header is created:
> |
> | Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.pgp"
> |
> | This causes Outlook to show an attachment where
On 22-Jan-2002 11:05 David Shaw wrote:
|
|Create an application/pgp message? ([yes]/no):
|
| Since it's not an application/pgp message at this point, the prompt
| should probably be something else.
Thanks for the input David. In my haste, I forgot to update the messages
to reflect
Dale Woolridge wrote:
> In particular, I removed the 'filename="msg.pgp"' (use_disp = 0)
> and decided against having an additional variable to force traditional
> use with 8bit messages. Instead, p_c_t is always consulted even when the
> content is 8bit.
>
> http://www.woolridge.ca/mut
55 matches
Mail list logo
