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.
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 there
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
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 was
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 error; 947beb -
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 using
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 error;
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 needs some
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
%
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 as
-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
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 since
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,
-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
-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 sentiment.
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, at
-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.
The
Hi,
of course it is possible to create traditional PGP messages in a
decent editor. I just successfully tried to use the Mailcrypt package
for Emacs when editing a message for Mutt in post.el mode.
There's just one caveat: I had to set noedit_headers to avoid signing
the headers as well. I
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 would
-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 of policy
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
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 who
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
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:47:50PM -0800, Jonathan Irving wrote:
Yes, but as has been pointed out a number of times, the patch
does not cause the MIME type to be set to text/plain.
This is just wrong. Setting the mime type to text/plain instead of
application/pgp is the very purpose of the
Cristian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10 Jan 2002 00:04 +0100]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:47:50PM -0800, Jonathan Irving wrote:
Yes, but as has been pointed out a number of times, the patch
does not cause the MIME type to be set to text/plain.
This is just wrong. Setting the mime type to
-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 compatibility patch'').
What has
28 matches
Mail list logo
