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

Re: inline vs smime encryption



begin  quotation of C Hamel on 2004-11-17 10:25:52 -0600:

> I am puzzled that the consensus seems to be that inline is outdated
> ...yet KDE uses it in its latest kmail client.

You should take that up with the KDE developers.

Or, you could take it up with Google - a HOWTO is the fourth result for
"kmail gpg mime".

> Further, though I have successfully encrypted via mutt (1)I cannot
> read the result except via kmail; (2)no copy encrypted to me is sent
> to sent-mail unless I am the recipient.  What gives?  How can this
> be fixed?  I don't seem to find any help regarding the command
> structure.

Mutt won't recognize inline encryption - besides kmail, the only other
popular mail client I know of that will is Thunderbird (with
Enigmail).  I think you'll find that if you manually run gpg on the
encrypted text that is 'only readable by kmail' you'll indeed be able
to read it.

> I have found absolutely nothing for use in .procmailrc in my searches except 
> as regards the PGO rather than GnuPG encryption.

When I consulted the almighty oracle of Google for the string
"procmailrc gpg mime", a recipie for converting to PGP/MIME was the
fifth result.  It's the one I was referring to in my previous mail.
You ought to read up on the differences and similarities between PGP
and GPG.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature