On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:22:30PM +0200, Remco Rijnders wrote:
From a quick glance at the RFC's, I think mutt is not doing the right thing here. The Content-Description field doesn't appear to be mandatory, but even if it is, it's meant to be a description for human readers and not computers. As such, mutt probably should make no assumptions based on its presence or content. The Content-Type header should be sufficient for mutt to decide if it's dealing with an S/MIME message or not.
The problem is that RFC5751 (S/MIME 3.2) says that the "smime-type" parameter for application/pkcs7-mime is OPTIONAL. Thus, Mutt doesn't have a way to inspect the Content-Type and know whether or not the message is encrypted, signed, or whatnot. It used to be that the Content-Description was set such that Mutt could use it as a heuristic. For Outlook compatibility, Mutt assumes that application/pkcs7-mime with a "name=*.p7m" is a signed message.
me
