On 2004-07-04T15:25:07-0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:23:09 +0100 > > From: n0g0013 <ttz_at_cobbled.net> > > Sender: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org > > > > On 02.07-19:31, Brad Knowles wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > Yup. PGP sign everything, and make sure that your keys don't > > > ever get stolen or compromised. That makes it much harder for > > > someone to successfully impersonate you. > > > > what is the story with PGP signatures these days? last i > > investigated there was a multi-part mime format that was meant > > to be standard and nobody used (except mutt, which i use). > > > > does anyone use that format or is it all inline now? mutt > > won't recognise the inline format as signed (and consequently > > won't verify the content). > > mutt need to be fixed. > Mutt is correct, in both it's handling of PGP signing and verification, as well as handling old-style PGP signing, as noted in the manual: http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#ss6.4 [...] check-traditional-pgp ESC P check for classic pgp [...] I concede that it isn't automatic though. However, there are some ways around this, using either maildrop (which I use) or procmail, which will add some goop to the original email so that mutt will parse the PGP content without any additional keystrokes. Of course, it is up to the user whether or not they want to tamper with the content of the email. For those curious about mutt's position on PGP, please see the following document: http://www.mutt.org/doc/PGP-Notes.txt especially the first entry in the FAQ. Thanks! -- Mike perl -e 'print unpack("u","88V]N=&%C=\"!I;F9O(&EN(&AE861E<G,*");'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:00 UTC