<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Inline PGP message and x-action woes



Maybe I am just getting at this from the wrong end... anyway, I would
like to have Mutt automatically identify inline style PGP {encrypted,
signed} messages as such, just like the PGP/MIME flavor. Let's face
it, a lot of people who use broken operating systems (of which I need
to communicate with many) also use broken MUAs that don't understand
how to handle, much less send, PGP/MIME style messages properly.

I set up three procmail recipes, like so:

        :0 fB
         *^^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----$
          | formail -i 'X-Action: pgp-encrypt'
        :0 fB
         *^^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----$
          | formail -i 'X-Action: pgp-sign'
        :0 fB
         *^^-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----$
          | formail -i 'X-Action: pgp-keys'

Initially, this appeared to work just the way I wanted it to. I sent
myself an inline signed message and it came through looking just like
a PGP/MIME signed one when it got back to me. Great. I then repeated
the feat on a mailing list that doesn't allow "attachments" (e.g.
PGP/MIME signatures) and it worked there, too.

Time to break out the champagne? Not quite, it appears. Going back to
the mailing list post now, perhaps an hour later, all of a sudden it
wasn't recognized as signed anymore. The personal e-mail still is.
Looking into this, it appears that Mutt prefers "Content-Type: ...
x-action=whatever" over a separate X-Action header.

Not knowing much about either procmail or formail (I get along using
simple procmail recipes and regexp matching) this has me somewhat
stumped. The -X switch to formail, used in a construct somewhat like
``| formail -i "`formail -X "Content-Type"`; x-action=whatever"''
seems like it could work (given that Content-Type doesn't already have
an x-action value, obviously), but that would require piping the
message through the inner formail first, and then the outer one, and
that really had me stumped as for how to do it in a way that doesn't
become too ugly...

Suggestions as for how to get Mutt to handle inline PGP messages in
the same way as PGP/MIME ones, or ideas about where to start looking,
would be much appreciated.

If it makes any difference, I am running Mutt 1.5.6, grabbed from CVS
just a couple of days ago.

-- 
/"\ Michael Kjörling - michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx - SM0YBY QTH JO89XI  ^..^
\ / OpenPGP: 3723 9372 c245 d6a8 18a6 36ac 758f 8749  BDE9 ADA6   \/
 X  World Wide Web: http://michael.kjorling.com/      Facta non verba
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML Mail, Proprietary Attachments

Attachment: pgpfAVvhTaETf.pgp
Description: PGP signature