also sprach Derek Martin [2009.11.30.0811 +0100]:
> Yes, I mean with any MIME. PGP predates MIME by about a year, as
> far as I can tell. So-called "traditional" PGP was intended to be
> used entirely within the message body, because at the time it was
> created there was *only* a message body.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Monday, November 30 at 09:58 AM, quoth martin f krafft:
> The problem comes when they aren't your peers (but e.g. your boss),
> or when you deal with Outlook+PGP people, because as far as I know,
> there is no way to do PGP-MIME with Outlook.
.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:59:32AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David J. Weller-Fahy
> [2009.11.28.2236 +0100]:
> > I then entered ':exec check-traditional-pgp' in mutt, and viewed
> > the message. The text preceding the digitally signed portion of
> > the message was still visibl
also sprach Kyle Wheeler [2009.11.30.1638 +0100]:
> ...Or if you deal with (Al)Pine+PGP people, because (Al)Pine cannot
> deal with PGP-MIME or any MIME format where one MIME component must be
> interpreted differently based on the contents of another MIME
> component.
>
> As for Outlook... I
also sprach Derek Martin [2009.11.30.1921 +0100]:
> My Mutt is Mutt 1.5.20hg (2009-06-23), only slightly newer than yours,
> but it clearly does have code to handle the case of pgp-mixed text
> bodies (in pgp_application_pgp_handler() in pgp.c). So it would seem
> the discussion is moot.
Indeed.
