Re: [TCLUG:11699] Messages As Attachments [was Re: [TCLUG:11633]Ipaddress timouts]

[Thomas Veldhouse <veldy@visi.com>]

I think HTML email is a good idea too!  But most on the list would not
appreciate it, right?  I use pine when telnetting, and that is a good
reason NOT to use HTML - probably the primary reason.  Does this same
rational apply to mutipart signed messages?  I don't see why not.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy@visi.com

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Eric M. Hopper wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 09:43:57AM -0600, Scott Dier - dieman wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Eric M. Hopper wrote:
> > 
> >> 	If your mailer doesn't understand multipart/signed well enough
> > 
> > The point is, OpenPGP standard wants it all as plaintext at the end
> > of the document.  None of this attachment bs.
> 
> Point me at the OpenPGP standard, and I'll look at it myself.  I was
> under the impression mutt was compliant in the manner in which it signs
> messages.
> 
> Even if it isn't, the whole multipart/signed thing seems like a really
> good idea for the resons I mentioned earlier.
> 
> Have fun (if at all possible),
> -- 
> Its name is Public Opinion.  It is held in reverence. It settles everything.
> Some think it is the voice of God.  Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet
> broke a chain or freed a human soul.     ---Mark Twain
> -- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.mn.org  http://omnifarious.mn.org/~hopper) --
>