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 th
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 straigh
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.mi
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 re
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 requ
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 keyst
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
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_crippl
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
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
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 t
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
s
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, b
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 t
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
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
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
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 t
* 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 ca
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 attachm
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 pe
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
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, d
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,
--
Davi
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
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 pu
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
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
> > re
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 pre
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."
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
>
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
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
-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
>
...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
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 t
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 us
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
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
...
% >
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/mim
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
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
-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 outl
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 termi
44 matches
Mail list logo
