* Todd <Freedom_Lover@xxxxxxxxx> [030916 20:11]: > Stewart V. Wright wrote: > > * Todd <Freedom_Lover@xxxxxxxxx> [030916 19:31]: > [...] > >> I hadn't done that, but in trying it just now, it behaves as expected, the > >> text is all there. > > > > Are you sure and how did you check? > > I just piped the message (well, the plain text part of) to gpg and into > less. Ahhh... You learn something new every day. I was using 'gpg --verify' and not seeing any plain text. > From that I could see that the text was intact. Just did it your way and I concur. > wanted to determine where the text was disappearing. Good thinking 99. > It's mutt that is > stripping it, though it might be partially because the message has bad form > (see the other message I just posted here). Yeah, saw that. As I said, I don't have the check_traditional patch applied and I have the same problems so it looks like a mainstream mutt problem. David Shaw might have some insight into this... Cheers, S. -- European Citizens: Please do a little work to convince the European Parliament to reject software patents. This page explains the issue and provides suggestions for action; take the time to participate. http://swpat.ffii.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature