On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 05:39:42AM -0600, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 15:48 -0500 25 Mar 2001, Adam Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your
> > E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages.
>
> Mutt doesn't include text like the above.
> That isn't a mutt-generated boundary.
>
>
> Have you tried checking the signature on a Fcc'd copy of a message?
I just tried that, it still gives a bad verification.
> I suspect that you're using the Courier MTA. The boundary quoted above
> looks like one I've seen generated by that. It's also known to be
> broken in dealing with signed MIME messages. The author has been told
> this, but refuses to fix the problem claiming that the relevant
> standards are at fault.
>
> If you are indeed using Courier, the attached patch to mutt may work
> around the problem. But, I'd recommend switching to an MTA that doesn't
> try to mess around with MIME, or if it does is written by someone that
> actually understands MIME.
I *am* using courier, and am quite aware of the author's, uh, personality. (-: But
since it didn't work on the fcc, I would assume something else is culprit?
> +++ sendlib.c Tue Dec 5 14:32:25 2000
> @@ -433,7 +433,10 @@
>
> fputc ('\n', f);
>
> - if (a->encoding != ENC7BIT)
> + /* Courier MTA will rewrite messages that don't contain an explicit
> + * Content-Transfer-Encoding, breaking PGP/MIME signatures. */
> + if (a->encoding != ENC7BIT
> + || (a->type == TYPEMULTIPART && mutt_strcmp(a->subtype, "signed") == 0) )
> fprintf(f, "Content-Transfer-Encoding: %s\n", ENCODING (a->encoding));
>
> /* Do NOT add the terminator here!!! */
I'm using 1.3.15, should I still apply this patch? Also, how come incoming pgp/signed
do not get munged?
Thanks,
A.
--
Adam Sherman
President & Technology Architect
Tritus Consultant Group Inc.
http://www.tritus.ca/
PGP signature
