On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 10:02 -0400, Jay Daniels wrote: > gpg signed messages are sent as attachments by default in mutt. Not only that, the author of mutt is also the author of the RFC for mime-signed messages. => I pretty much believe mutt does it the right way. > i can understand signing a message to the list with gpg to insure that > your messages are verified they are sent from you. however, i don't > think anyone cares unless it's a list or fedora package update notice > - and they don't sign those either. I care to verify messages signed by people in my keyring. > i setup gpg once with mutt, but nobody ever used it or sent me any gpg > encrypted messages and i found it worthless and a waste of time typing > in the password string. so it's your problem. don't use signed/encrypted messaging :) > there is also the isssue of compatibility > between gpg and different versions of ms windows pgp clients. There are RFCs and OpenPGP is a standard, no? Why not complain to the proprietary or incompatible clients? Regards, Rui
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
