Dear all,
I am obviously doing something wrong but can't find out what...
I configured mutt to PGP-sign/encrypt (~/.muttrc and ~/.gpg.rc). When sending
out an email interactively, everything works fine: emails get signed and
encrypted by mutt.
But if I am sending a mail via the command line, m
Hello everyone,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:48:08PM +0200, Antoine Amarilli wrote:
> The short version of my question is: Is there a way for the
> resend-message command to honor PGP signature/encryption settings
> stored in the target message in the X-Mutt-PGP header?
>
> The reas
ption
settings for the postponed message (and chooses to have no
encryption/signature instead). Indeed, postponing the message stores a
message without encryption or signature, and merely indiates in a
X-Mutt-PGP header what the message setting was, and resend-messages
looks at the message itself to d
Gregor --
...and then Gregor Zattler said...
%
% Hi David,
% * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [22. Jul. 2002]:
% > Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on
% > the mailing list.
%
% Sorry, i forgot to delete the reply-to: -header.
Well, you needed to get rid of t
Hi David,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [22. Jul. 2002]:
> Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on
> the mailing list.
Sorry, i forgot to delete the reply-to: -header.
[...]
> % every email address there is a pgp-hook. But mutt continues bothering
> % me n time
Gregor --
Please don't just reply to any random message to start a new thread on
the mailing list. This note really has nothing to do with mutt and MH
mailboxes.
...and then Gregor Zattler said...
%
% Hi,
%
% i often write E-Mails to a bunch of people (say "n" persons). For
% every email addr
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote:
> % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
>
> Yep.
[SNIP]
> Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before.
Well, o.k. thanks... But two questions:
- Where can I get the patch?
- If litt
Morten Liebach [25/09/01 09:27 +0200]:
> I think you can "make patch", then apply your 3rd party patch, and then
> a "make install".
I'll see if I can contact the patch maintainer and move it into the freebsd
ports tree. I'd hate to do it everytime I cvsup and install a new mutt.
-sure
On 25, Sep, 2001 at 08:48:07AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> David T-G [24/09/01 20:48 -0400]:
> > % Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself?
> > Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before.
>
> I use freebsd's port collection - I'll see
Derek --
...and then Derek D. Martin said...
% On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote:
%
% > % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
% >
% > Yep.
% [SNIP]
% > Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before.
%
% Well, o.k. thanks..
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:12:23AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Hi
>
> Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
>
> Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself?
>
I do this frequently with vim, myself. The biggest drawback is you
need to
Bruno Postle [24/09/01 21:03 +0100]:
> That would be the right way to do it. I do it the wrong way in mutt :-),
> when I need to communicate with the nic.uk robot (it requires all sorts
> of annoying pgp things) I use:
> macro compose S "Fgpg -a --clearsign -u 0x82C08753"
And to encrypt / en
David T-G [24/09/01 20:48 -0400]:
> % Now, what do I do? Clearsign / encrypt it in the vim buffer itself?
> Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before.
I use freebsd's port collection - I'll see if I can work this into the port
I'm running.
-suresh
PGP signatu
On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 08:48:37PM -0400, David T-G wrote:
> % Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
>
> Yep.
[SNIP]
> Use Shane's pgp_outlook_compat patch, as I've plugged here before.
Well, o.k. thanks... But two questions:
- Where can I get the patch?
- If litt
Suresh, et al --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% Hi
Hi!
%
% Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
Yep.
%
...
% either ... they'd prefer
%
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
%
% Now, what do I do? Clearsi
On Tue 25-Sep-2001 at 01:12:23AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> But i don't want application/pgp <- rather, Eudora and Outhouse don't
> want it either ... they'd prefer
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> 7bit
>
> Now, what do I do? Clearsign / e
Hi
Known issue: Outlook and Eudora (for example) barf on pgp-mime.
When I use pgp_create_traditional, what I get is something like
Content-Type: application/pgp; x-action=encrypt; format=text
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="msg.pgp"
But i don't want application/pgp <- rather, Eudora and
* Ailbhe Leamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote:
>
> > ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
> % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
> [attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David
> discussion so far]
>
> > % Yes, but _why_?
> >
> > Why use PGP
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote:
> OK, all of this I understand. I completely fail to understand why it
> should apply to public communication, as distinct from private
> communication.
Because it is still important to know that a public message comes
from the person
Ailbhe --
...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
% On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote:
%
% > ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
% % On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
% [attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David
% discussion so far]
Oh, but that's where the fun comes in! :-)
On (14/09/01 15:26), Justin R. Miller wrote:
> Ailbhe, you should read up on the web of trust. While it is the weak
> point in public key crypto, it answers your question.
Trouble with the web of trust is that I don't trust it unless it
contains a fairly high proportion of people I know and tru
On (14/09/01 15:00), David T-G wrote:
> ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
% On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
[attribs snipped, because it's basically a David-Ailbhe-David
discussion so far]
% Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a
% pgp-signature to things.
%
% Havi
Thus spake David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> concerned about my messages being accidentally munged in transmission
> (found on this list only a month or two ago and bought to my attention
> by a guy -- whose name I have now forgotten but whose attention is
> still appreciated -- who wondered why m
Ailbhe, et al --
...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
% On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
%
% > ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... %
%
% > % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
% >
% > Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you
% > have a mailing addres
Thus spake Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Because someone can send an email to a mailing list purpoting to be
> from you that can cause a lot of damage, e.g. some form of hoax. A
> signed email can only be from you (assuming web of trust works as
> intended).
And I would add that although ma
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote:
> In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for
> distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there are
> archives?
Because someone can send an email to a mailing list purpoting to be
from you t
On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
> ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... %
> % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
>
> Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you
> have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies.
Having a valid From:
Ailbhe, et al --
...and then Ailbhe Leamy said...
%
...
% Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you
have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies.
It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone e
On (13/09/01 21:59), Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Cliff Sarginson [13/09/01 18:08 +0200]:
>
> > > Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists? Ailbhe
>
> > This is an excellent question, since I just accidentally bombarded
> > this list with my public key I have been thinking that si
Cliff Sarginson [13/09/01 18:08 +0200]:
> > Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
> > Ailbhe
> This is an excellent question, since I just accidentally bombarded
> this list with my public key I have been thinking that signing
> mailing list messages serves *no* useful purpose.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:48:39PM +0100, Ailbhe Leamy wrote:
> On (13/09/01 10:37), Nelson D. Guerrero wrote:
>
> > PGP signature could NOT be verified.
>
> # Recognise good signatures set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature
> from"
>
> This way, only genuinely unrecognised signatures will giv
On (13/09/01 10:37), Nelson D. Guerrero wrote:
> PGP signature could NOT be verified.
# Recognise good signatures set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature
from"
This way, only genuinely unrecognised signatures will give you this
warning.
Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
Ail
> Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for
> a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that.
> But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed
> email.
>
> PGP signature could NOT be verified.
>
> I get that everytim
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 10:37:26AM -0400, Nelson D. Guerrero wrote:
> Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for
> a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that.
> But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed
> email.
Hello,
Well, I installed gpg a couple of weeks ago and was looking around for
a answer to my problem, and just did'nt find one so I left it like that.
But it's become quite anoying looking at that everytime I get a signed
email.
PGP signature could NOT be verified.
I get that everytime...how
Hi,
I've put a new version of my abook patch and its accompanying
scripts to
http://www.net.uni-sb.de/~robin/abook
(please note the new address).
It makes the usage of mutt's PGP features more comfortable as you
can turn on encryption/signing interactivly in abook for certai
Hi!
I am using mutt+pgp6 to sign and encrypt my email, to securelly communicate
with coworkers over the inet. I have just found out that using mutt version
1.3.20i (2001-07-24), compiled with pgp support: +HAVE_PGP I can only sign, but
not encrypt e-mail. Whenever I try to send encrypted email mu
I applied this patch by Aaron Schrab, and now mutt generates a top-level
Content-Trasfer-Encoding header. This makes courier leave the message
unmolested, and my PGP signatures verify correctly! Thanks Aaron.
--- sendlib.c.dist Tue Dec 5 12:31:21 2000
+++ sendlib.c Tue Dec 5 14:32:25 200
On 2000-11-24 08:02:35 -0600, Scott Davis wrote:
> when I cat on this FreeBSD box, it is all garbled... nothing
> readable.
Try typing "pgpring -2", and extract the part of the output which
looks like it's related to you.
--
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thomas Roessler filled my mailbox with:
>
>
> > I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg'
>
> What's your key ID looking like?
when I cat on this FreeBSD box, it is all garbled... nothing
readable.
-=*=-
Scott A. Davis...[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin, Texas USA .
On 2000-11-24 04:31:12 -0600, Scott Davis wrote:
> I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg'
What's your key ID looking like?
Hi!
I have installed Pretty Good Privacy 2.6.3i on this FreeBSD box and all
went well. I am trying to integrate it into Mutt 1.2.5i, and that seems
to go 99% ok. The problem I have is this:
I created a key for myself on this machine using 'pgp -kg'
When I go to use Mutt, send mail to myself,
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=wq9mPyueHGvFACwf; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
OK, here are more news to frustrate you: My procmail filter happily
kicked in and set your message's content-type to application/pgp.
The relevant portion:
##
## PGP
##
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-
On 1999-05-06 18:04:15 +, Andreas Wessel wrote:
> The person who's mail I can't read uses Eudora (I think). But that
> shouldn't make a difference??!!
I'd suggest you just post one of the encrypted messages, _including_
all MIME headers, to this list. We won't be able to read much about
you
On 1999-05-06 11:31:01 +, Andreas Wessel wrote:
> I have the same probelm _and_ I'm using the "pgp-procmail-entry".
> Works fine with pgpversions < 602. But NOT with 602 - That version
> gives just plaintext...
Strange. I'm regularly corresponding with a person who uses 6.0.2i
with Lotus No
On 1999-05-01 07:58:58 +0200, Erik van der Meulen wrote:
> I have a problem decoding a message which is sent to me from a Windows
> machine which uses PGP 602. It uses a RSA key which is ciphered IDEA.
> In fact, it uses the same key I use now in Mutt, for I am sending this
> to myself. Mutt doe
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mutt-PGP and PGP602 for Win
I have a problem decoding a message which is sent to me from a Windows
machine which uses PGP 602. It uses a RSA key which is ciphered IDEA.
In fact, it uses the same key I use now in Mutt, for I am sending this
to myself. Mutt does not recognise
I have a problem decoding a message which is sent to me
from a Windows machine which uses PGP 602. It uses a RSA
key which is ciphered IDEA. In fact, it uses the same key
I use now in Mutt, for I am sending this to myself.
Mutt does not recognise this as a PGP message and treats
it as plain text.
Alexander N. Benner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> btw. was mutt written according to RFC 2015 or vv?
Mutt was written according to RFC-2015 because it was written by the
author of RFC-2015.
--
David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there
hi
Ship's Log, Lt. David Thorburn-Gundlach, Stardate 190199.0948:
> Andy --
>
> Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy
> of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's
> always been.
>
btw. was mutt written
SteelOnIce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... all I want to do is send a plain text
> message, which contains the pgp message NO
> ATACHMENTS...
In your .muttrc:
# For generating old-style clearsigned PGP unMIMEd attachments:
macro compose f1 "Fpgp +verbose=0 -fast +clearsig=
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 01:51:00PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> If I intented to be snotty to people about it, I would certainly do that.
> Since I don't intend to be snotty to people about it, I feel that those who
> are riding their high horses should back up their actions.
You understand. This is
> > What I'm getting at is that while Mutt may be doing it right, you can get
> > down off your high horse and help out the people who have to be able to
> > work in a backwards compatible fashion. The current PGP-Notes documentation
> > scratches the surface at best. I figured it out - as I'm su
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 11:56:25AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
> What I'm getting at is that while Mutt may be doing it right, you can get
> down off your high horse and help out the people who have to be able to
> work in a backwards compatible fashion. The current PGP-Notes documentation
> scratches
> Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy
> of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's
> always been.
> In short, PGP signatures and encrypted text really should, according
> to RFC 2015 (IIRC), be attachments. I
Thanks,
I didn't know about the RFC 2015 (IIRC).
But at least I do know now that I am doing right, what (allmost) everybody else
is doing wrong :)))
Andy
On Tue, Jan 19, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote:
> Andy --
>
> Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious p
Andy --
Welcome to the Great Mutt PGP Debate, wherein the religious philosophy
of adhering to the proper RFC standards versus doing it the way it's
always been.
In short, PGP signatures and encrypted text really should, according
to RFC 2015 (IIRC), be attachments. In even shorter, mutt
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 07:04:33PM +, SteelOnIce wrote:
> Hmm... all I want to do is send a plain text message, which
> contains the pgp message NO ATACHMENTS... Why does that lead to
> content problems? I recived Mails containing a pgp sig. at the
> bottom before... or Mails, where all I can
Well just one more time :)))
On Mon, Jan 18, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 04:14:54PM +, SteelOnIce wrote:
>
> > When I use Mutt together with pgp it attaches my signatures and /
> > or encrypted mails as files... I want the pgp message to be the
> > main message bod
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 04:14:54PM +, SteelOnIce wrote:
> When I use Mutt together with pgp it attaches my signatures and /
> or encrypted mails as files... I want the pgp message to be the
> main message body! How can I change that???
Not at all. Mutt generates MIME-encapsulated PGP messag
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=nqkreNcslJAfgyzk; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Hi there...
When I use Mutt together with pgp it attaches my signatures and / or encrypted mails
as files...
I want the pgp message to be the main message body! How can I change that???
Also, when I recive a pgp encrypted mail I can't read it! It shows me the pgp message
as the body but doesn't
63 matches
Mail list logo
