> Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy
> of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's
> always been.
> In short, PGP signatures and encrypted text really should, according
> to RFC 2015 (IIRC), be attachments. In even shorter, mutt folks say
> "fergit those who can't hack it because they have stupid mail programs"
> and Just Do It.
Okay - I'm all for "Doing It Right". But the truth is that most of us have
work to do, and stopping that work to become religious leaders of the Right
Way to Do PGP isn't it :-)
In seriousness, we aren't going to be able to convert everyone we have to
work with to use Mutt, nor convince their vendors to do it right. In the
long term, maybe. But most of us have mail to read this afternoon, not
next year.
What I'm getting at is that while Mutt may be doing it right, you can get
down off your high horse and help out the people who have to be able to
work in a backwards compatible fashion. The current PGP-Notes documentation
scratches the surface at best. I figured it out - as I'm sure many others
have.. but if you want to be snotty, provide better documentation first.
--
Joe Rhett Systems Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ISite Services
PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/
