MIME-encoded PGP / GPG signatures (again)

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

> Meyer Wolfsheim <wolf at priori.net> wrote:
> > >   - It's not that Mutt doesn't play well with others (and yes, I'm aware
> >
> > No, it's Mutt users who don't play well with others.
>
> Be fair.

You are right; there are plenty of Mutt users who play just fine with
others. I'm sorry if I offended any of you. :)

For the most part, Mutt is an excellent email client. However, I'm
actually going to correct myself, and say that it *is* Mutt that doesn't
play well with others in this case. I have no problem with Mutt favoring
RFC 2015/3156 for PGP handling. As someone else recently pointed out on
one of the GnuPG lists, the flaw is in Mutt's inability to do normal PGP
messages.

> I rewrote much of the PGP functionality in Mutt just so I
> could send PGP-signed messages to this list without pissing people

That's my point. You shouldn't need to hack your mail client to get it to
work in a compatible manner. Mutt should offer the option to use vanilla
2440 messaging. (The "old-style", or whatever Mutt calls the
application/pgp hack, doesn't count.)

> In any case, if anyone wants my patch for Mutt that will give you the
> option to keep it from including the "MIME encrustations" (in the
> words of Tim May), just ask and I'll send it to you.

Why don't you go ahead and post it to the list?

Also, have you tried submitting it to the Mutt development team? What did
they say?


-MW-