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

["Eric M. Hopper" <hopper@omnifarious.mn.org>]

On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 11:55:15AM -0600, Thomas Veldhouse wrote:
> 
> It is quite clear that Part #1 is referring to an attachment.  It is
> not any kind of standard to display or not display an attachment in
> the body of a message.  I think you will find the AOL client does
> something similar (at least emails I get from AOL folks often has
> quoted messages as attachments).  I personally prefer that to some of
> the other methods in a windowing environment - except in this case.
> Why must the body of a message be sent as an attachment?  Don't you
> find this odd behaviour?  In the past, signed messages have always
> been part of the body of the message, signature included.  This seems
> most rational to me.  Can MUTT be configured to do this?  Then
> everybody here would be happy, don't you think?

	I will look into configuring mutt to do this.  There is a
'clearsign' option for GnuPG that should do this, but I don't know if
mutt has a nice hook to use it.  If it doesn't, perhaps I should look
into adding it.  :-)

	As I stated before though, I think the multipart/signed method
is actually a better method of handling the problem.  It clearly
seperates out the signed data from any other parts of the message, and
renders it largely immune to munging by mail servers.  Signed data is
particularily sensitive to munging because even the tiniest bit will
cause the signature to be invalid.

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) --

PGP signature