On Jan 24, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Volker, et al -- > % the last five months I read mutt-users this problem came up several > % times. Lots of mutt-users post their (more or less) complicated macros > % which always have their disadvantages. Ok, it seems not to me mutt's > % philosophy to support this traditional style. But there are some flags > > Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros? These macros > simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but usually > not spend the time on doing so for all messages. Macros are no longer > (in 1.3.x where x=>20 at least) necessary for traditional verification.
The subject line is probably misleading. You're right that the current conversation has nothing to do with traditional vs. PGP/MIME. (But hey, we all know a pgp conversation on mutt-users isn't a pgp conversation until it broaches that issue).
msg23703/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
