Viktor -- ...and then Viktor Rosenfeld said... % % [CC'd to mutt-dev b/c of attached patch, I'm not on mutt-dev, so please % CC me in replies]
I trust that's not required for mutt-users... % % Cristian wrote: % % > What has confused a few people is the fact that the patch is effective % > only if both pgp_outlook_compat and pgp_create_traditional are set. % > % > > The proposal is to dump application/pgp, and make p_c_t result in % > > a plain text MIME type for clearsigned messages. % > % > That's right. This can be achieved by integrating the patch into the % > next full release of Mutt. % % No, NO, *NO*! % % pgp_outlook_compat will make a text/plain message, that is readable % properly in Outlook, but *only* *if* pgp_create_traditional succeeds. Right. % Unfortunately p_c_t gets silently dropped for message which are not % us-ascii, i.e. most of my personal mails, since I use fancy stuff like % ä's and ö's and ü's and the like. Ah, yes. How, however, is the proposed behavior (making $p_c_t generate a text/plain instead of an application/pgp message) different from what we have now with $p_c_t and $p_o_c? Note that I don't say that it fixes the problem you bring up, but it will fix the problem as Cristian wrote -- for any message that would have been text/plain anyway. % % p_c_t and p_o_c break on iso-latin1 and on any mails with attachments, % so they are basically useless for a lot of people. Right. Thus there are lots of folks with macros out there, which I personally don't like because I think that mutt should be able to handle it. As it stands I just whine a really lot and then just make my LookOut! users deal with MIME encryption :-) % % Here's a patch which creates pgp_force_traditional, which if % p_c_t is set, will always create a clear-signed PGP messages (not sure % for mails of attachments though). That way, p_o_c can do the job it's % supposed to do. I haven't tested it a lot since I wrote it, but it % appears to do the right thing. That's a start. I haven't learned about either the workings of mutt or the structure of the messages, but does this generate iso-latin-1 or text/plain messages? I'd be happy if mutt could clearsign just the text body of a multipart message, allowing me to at least authenticate that portion (but I don't know if any other mailers would handle it anyway). As it stands, the best I could do would be to tar or zip everything that I'm sending (to make it only one attachment) and ship it off, followed by a clearsigned message containing a pasted-in detached sig of the bundle. Yuck. Has anyone sat down to see what Outhouse (just because it seems the most common *and* the most problematic) does for extended charsets and for attachments? I doubt :-) that they do it "right", but they might do it like many others do, and all we'd need to do would be to get mutt to break itself enough to spew out the same malformed junk. % % Patch is against mutt-1.3.24, I'll test it tomorrow against 1.3.25, and % you need to have the pgp_outlook_compat patch applied first. % % I don't know a lot about the mutt source, so this might break stuff, % haven't tested it a lot. I'll probably wait for you to test more and perhaps wait to see how the mutt source itself shakes down, but I like the idea. % % Cheers, % Viktor % % (Should have gone to bed two hours ago. Oh, well.) *grin* Thanks for staying up! % -- % Viktor Rosenfeld % WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/ :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg22923/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
