Re: [Mutt] #3067: PGP/MIME signatures incorrectly assigned
#3067: PGP/MIME signatures incorrectly assigned "Content-Disposition: inline"
Comment (by Thomas Roessler):
{{{
On 2008-06-12 14:51:18 -0000, Mutt wrote:
> While I think it may mean something that the RFC author set the
> disposition this way, I'm still not sure I think it's the correct
> approach.
> The PGP/MIME signature is *supposed* to be an attachment, which
> is in the RFC. It therefore seems that setting the disposition
> to be "inline", and therefore suggesting that MUAs display the
> signature inline, just doesn't make sense, at least not to me.
The PGP/MIME spec is silent on whether or not Content-Disposition
should be sent, or to what value.
The notion that the PGP/MIME signature is "supposed to be an
attachment", and that that somehow influences the choice of value
for Content-Disposition is bogus: The signature is yet another body
part (commonly called "attachment"), but that doesn't mean that
handling that part as an "attachment" in the sense of the
Content-Disposition header is somehow more or less reasonable.
My suspicion is that we added the current code to mutt as a hack to
make things work better with some other mailer -- maybe it was about
keeping Eudora from cluttering attachment directories, maybe it was
about something else. I don't remember.
> I think either the suggestion to make it a config-controllable
> option, or removing the Content-Disposition header entirely are
> better than leaving the disposition hard coded in.
A config-controlled option for this would be ridiculous, sorry.
Cheers,
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3067#comment:>