I know know PGP stuff is supposed to be specified via MIME headers. I'm
just not sure which technique is best. Mutt is attaching a Content-Type
header like this:
Content-Type: multipart/encrypted; protocol="application/pgp-encrypted";
boundary="FoLtEtfbNGMjfgrs"
Content-Disposition: inline
Which shows up as an attachment if viewed in Pine. Messages sent from
Pine, however, use a header format like this:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt
Which shows up inline. From my perusal of RFC1806, it sounds like the
Content-Disposition header combined with a multipart MIME message
should, indeed, be displayed as an attachment.
------
2.5 Content-Disposition and Multipart
If a Content-Disposition header is used on a multipart body part, it
applies to the multipart as a whole, not the individual subparts.
The disposition types of the subparts do not need to be consulted
until the multipart itself is presented. When the multipart is
displayed, then the dispositions of the subparts should be respected.
------
Is my interpretation of that snippet correct? If so, it seems it would
be preferrable to not set up PGP encrypted messages as multipart so they
can be viewed inline by Pine and other MUAs.
Since mutt has a record of being extremely correct in it's observation
of RFCs, I'm assuming that my understanding of the situation is
incorrect. I would be very interested in an explanation of my
(presumed) misunderstanding.
I also would appreciate any recommendations that I could use to
configure mutt to allow "inline" viewing of encrypted messages by other
less correct MUAs.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
