Hi, * David T-G [05/17/02 15:43:40 CEST] wrote: > ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> Well, yeah; the point was that we don't need mutt's cool features here > since the mail interface isn't doing the encrypting. Right, we (isn't it still only me who wants to solve something ;-) don't need mutt at all. I've tested a few things and found out two facts. First of all, I now know that it works. And second, I totally forgot that I'm running procmail on my machine which rewrites the content-type header so that I don't need Esc+P at all... > % The second is a bit more complicated. The command will be > % placed in /etc/aliases as an alias for a local user. All mail > % to that user should be encrypted with one of my public keys > Will the mail also be delivered to the user, or are you just doing a > fancy version of a .forward file? Only forward. I just want to redirect mails to user@machine to another account encrypted with my key (because I don't want any mail to be forwarded as plaintext). > It's at least simpler. It should be easy enough to implement, too; > you could probably encrypt the whole thing and also wrap it in a MIME > header that says it's an RFC822 message and mutt would read it pretty > transparently. I dunno how the mix of MIME and not-MIME would work, > but experimentation should answer that for you. What I'm going to do is to simply encrypt the content without any ugly hack. I put it in a mailbox on my machine and run some shellscript(s) over it to recover the original and write them back to another folder. Cheers, Rocco.
