On 2001-09-17 21:22:54 -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote:
>In recent devel versions of Mutt, you can hit Esc-P to convert a
>message on-the-fly.
In particular, this also works when the PGP-signed or encrypted body
part is an attachment.
--
Thomas Roesslerhttp://log.does-n
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
>
> I don't use procmail; I use maildrop. What does this procmail recipe do? I
> would like to translate it into maildrop.
>
I use maildrop and this is what I use to convert clearsign's
Thus spake Will Yardley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm not sure
> if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically check signatures that
> use the old style method, although i'm sure a quick search on google
> would turn up something regardin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
I don't use procmail; I use maildrop. What does this procmail recipe do? I
would like to translate it into maildrop.
> I think this widely circulated piece of code in your .procmailrc
> should take care of that.
>
> --
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010918 01:50]:
> you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm
> not sure if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically
> check signatures that use the old style method, although i'm
> sure a quick search on google would turn up something regar
Matt Spong wrote:
> While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of
> signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on
> the planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for
> example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text
Hi all
While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of
signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on the
planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for
example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text of
the signature
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:50:19PM -0500 or thereabouts, David T-G wrote:
> % was able to decrypt it without problems. I am using GnuPG with my Mutt
> % v1.2.5i.
> Yay!
Nothing better has been devised
> % read the attachment. According to him, they came up as *.ems attachment
> Yep.
Vely
Gary, et al --
...and then Gary said...
% Hi Mutt men (and women),
%
% I have a friend who I have been running tests with on PGP/MIME compliance
% with his Eudora v5.0.2. He recieved my encrypted MIME email and his Eudora
Ick.
% was able to decrypt it without problems. I am using GnuPG with
Hi Mutt men (and women),
I have a friend who I have been running tests with on PGP/MIME compliance
with his Eudora v5.0.2. He recieved my encrypted MIME email and his Eudora
was able to decrypt it without problems. I am using GnuPG with my Mutt
v1.2.5i.
Next I sent him an encrypted and signe
On 2000-12-05 17:23:30 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Well, I really think it's not really the MUA, but it's PGP/MIME
> that's broken.
As would be S/MIME (that stuff used by Outlook and Netscape). Sam,
I'd seriously suggest that, for the time being, you just implement
the standards which are
On 2000-12-05 15:49:53 +0100, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> So the problem boils down to the MUA not generating full and
> correct MIME headers. In this case, mutt isn't inserting all the
> headers that courier expects (it assumes that the relevant
> information will be infered according to RFC 1847).
At 15:49 +0100 05 Dec 2000, Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:31:43AM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > Note that the second MIME section does not specify its content transfer
> > encoding. Neither is the default transfer encoding specified in the top
> > lev
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:31:43AM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Hi Sam,
Thank you very much for this detailed answer. I now understand what the
problem is. I just concluded a test, where I manually inserted a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: header into the main headers of the mail, and
used only 7bi
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:19:33PM +0100, Marc Richter wrote:
> Hi !
>
> O.K. I've got PGP running on my workstation and want
> to use it together with mutt now.
>
> Has anyone get this running ?
>
> I can send mail using:
> set pgp_encrypt_only_command="pgp +verbose=0 +batchmode -et - %r"
>
>
Hi !
O.K. I've got PGP running on my workstation and want
to use it together with mutt now.
Has anyone get this running ?
I can send mail using:
set pgp_encrypt_only_command="pgp +verbose=0 +batchmode -et - %r"
But the decryption is not running :-/
set pgp_decrypt_command="PGPPASSFD=0; export
Daniel --
...and then Daniel Kollar said...
% I'm setting the passphrase via the PGPPASS environment variable before starting
% mutt.
Why would you do that? That has to be the second-worst method of storing
the passphrase, and mutt will only ask you once per $pgp_timeout seconds
(or until you h
I'm setting the passphrase via the PGPPASS environment variable before starting
mutt.
Wenn I open a pgp encrypted message mutt still asks me for the
passphrase. This is not necessary, because pgp looks automatically for
the PGPPASS environment variable.
So, how do I disable this function in mutt?
Mikko Hänninen muttered:
> Daniel Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2000:
> > The passphrase is sent via the command
> > cat %?p?-?
> > Can this %?p? be used in the mailcap file?
>
> I'm not sure, but the %?p?-? looks like a Mutt expansion string.
>From my gpg.rc assuming that
Daniel Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2000:
> The passphrase is sent via the command
> cat %?p?-?
>
> I'm not a unix expert. Can anyone explain these quotation marks (?),
> please?
> Can this %?p? be used in the mailcap file?
> I need to send the passphrase to mutt_octet-filt
> > Mutt can remember the pgp passphrase once it is entered by the user.
> > How does mutt passes the phrase over to pgp when en-/decrypting a message?
> > Is there an algorithm that checks for the pgp passphrase input message
> > and sends it as stdin ?
> and can I snoop it over a network? :-)
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 09:06:23AM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Daniel Kollar thought:
> Mutt can remember the pgp passphrase once it is entered by the user.
> How does mutt passes the phrase over to pgp when en-/decrypting a message?
> Is there an algorithm that checks for the pgp pass
Mutt can remember the pgp passphrase once it is entered by the user.
How does mutt passes the phrase over to pgp when en-/decrypting a message?
Is there an algorithm that checks for the pgp passphrase input message
and sends it as stdin ?
Daniel.
Marco --
...and then Marco Ahrendt said...
% On 15 Oct 00, at 13:40, David T-G wrote:
%
% > you anything else because I don't want to further contribute to your
% > delinquency ;-)
%
% i forgot to say that i already tested this setting. this is not what i want:)
Ah. Well, I don't feel so bad,
Suresh --
...and then Suresh Ramasubramanian said...
% David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
%
% > Suresh & Mrinal & co, this *definitely* needs to go into the mutt-newbie
% > FAQ. This seems to come up at least once a week. Is it just me, or are
% > we getting *more* questions for this *s
On 15 Oct 00, at 13:40, David T-G wrote:
> Marco, check out pgp_create_traditional in the manual. I won't tell
> you anything else because I don't want to further contribute to your
> delinquency ;-)
i forgot to say that i already tested this setting. this is not what i want:)
mutt then sends t
David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Marco, check out pgp_create_traditional in the manual. I won't tell
> you anything else because I don't want to further contribute to your
> delinquency ;-)
> Suresh & Mrinal & co, this *definitely* needs to go into the mutt-newbie
> FAQ. This seems
David T-G proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Marco, check out pgp_create_traditional in the manual. I won't tell
> you anything else because I don't want to further contribute to your
> delinquency ;-)
> Suresh & Mrinal & co, this *definitely* needs to go into the mutt-newbie
> FAQ. This seems
Marco --
Before I forget, you should know that the proper address for mutt-users
is as above; gbnet hosts the mailing list and web site, and their address
sometimes leaks through accidentally. That said, ...
...and then Marco Ahrendt said...
% hi all,
%
% i have running mutt1.2.5i and gpg 1.0.
hi all,
i have running mutt1.2.5i and gpg 1.0.1. when i encrypt and sign a message
mutt is exporting the mail like this:
Content-Type: multipart/encrypted; protocol="application/pgp-encrypted";
boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c"
Content-Disposition: inline
this is a problem for users with pega
Anand Buddhdev [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I've recently started to use GnuPG 1.0.1 with mutt 1.2i. I notice a small
> problem:
>
> 1. If I receive a message with a PGP signature attached, and view it with
> mutt, gpg claims that it's a bad signature, even if the signature is good,
> in certain
I've recently started to use GnuPG 1.0.1 with mutt 1.2i. I notice a small
problem:
1. If I receive a message with a PGP signature attached, and view it with
mutt, gpg claims that it's a bad signature, even if the signature is good,
in certain circumstances. In particular, this happens if the inco
On 2000-05-02 19:44:17 +, rex wrote:
> The PGP 6.5.1i-beta2 source is available at:
> http://www.pgpi.org/products/nai/pgp/versions/freeware/unix/6.5.1i/download/
Additionally, at least the 1.1 branch has a sample
configuration file for use with PGP 6.
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 07:30:31AM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 03:05:39PM +0100, Dave Ewart wrote:
> > Is no-one else using PGP 6.5.1i with Mutt?
>
> I believe most people are using either gpg or pgp 2.6.x since the source is
> readily available.
The PGP 6.5.1i-beta2
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 03:05:39PM +0100, Dave Ewart wrote:
> Is no-one else using PGP 6.5.1i with Mutt?
I believe most people are using either gpg or pgp 2.6.x since the source is
readily available.
me
--
pgp key available from http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/elkins-pgp-key.asc
PGP signature
Dear All,
On Friday, I sent a message to this list about using PGP 6.5.1i and got
absolutely no response whatsoever, which, given the general
discussion/response I've seen in the past and to other current posts,
surprised me. I assume the message did get through, because I received a
copy of my
Hello, I'm having some problems on getting mutt to work (properly) with
PGP 5.0. Does anyone here use it?
I already compiled mutt 1.0i with support for PGP (had to hack the configure
script though). I've set the proper variables and generated a key for me using
pgpk -g.
Now, for the questions:
Wh
37 matches
Mail list logo
