* Lupe Christoph [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:25:27 +0100]: > When I recently read about problems with verifying the PGP signature of > DSAs, I realized that for most DSAs mutt does not automatically check > the signature.
> Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
> I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a Content-Type as mutt
> wants it:
> Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign
I think this format is obsolete. A correct PGP/MIME message would read
something similar to (correct me if I'm wrong):
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT"
> Newer ones from him and all others have this:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Mutt *can* varify these, but only when told with (default) ESC P. And
> this does not change the message, mutt will loose the info when it
> leaves the mailbox.
> Yes, I know about the procmail hack. And I will set it up now. But for
> the sake of people like me before I started to investigate this, I still
> wanted to ask this question.
I know about the procmail hack too, and it miserably fails when the
message is a multipart one. Of course the long term solution is to get
everybody to use the new not-obsolete PGP/MIME format, but in the
meanwhile I would recommend to mutt users to try this little mutt hook:
message-hook '!(~g|~G) ~b"^-----BEGIN\ PGP\ (SIGNED\ )?MESSAGE"' "exec
check-traditional-pgp"
Personally, I found it quite useful, as I've now completely forgotten
about headaches brought by inline-signed mail. (The hook, oviously,
simuates presssing ESC P *each* time the message is viewed.)
HTH.
--
Adeodato Simó (a.k.a. thibaut)
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | IM: my_dato [jabber.org] | PK: DA6AE621
If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in
despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the
implacable grandeur of this life.
-- Albert Camus
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
