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

Re: inline vs smime encryption



On 2004-11-21 09:53 +0100, roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> You shouldn't have to run gpg manually on *anything*.  See
> pgp-check-traditional.

One thing I am finding it necessary to run gpg manually on, is the
following scenario:

* I *need* to use an inline signature (sending to someone with a
  broken MUA, no hope of getting them to fix that)
* I wish to send any kind of attachment

In that case, Mutt will tell me that inline signing is not possible
and ask if it should revert to PGP/MIME. Would it be possible to add
some kind of function native to Mutt to only sign a single part of the
message? (The only way I can think of is pipe it through gpg and set
Mutt to send in clear text.) Or maybe I am missing something? I have
read through TFM and TFH but didn't notice anything like it.

I am using Mutt from CVS back in late July.

-- 
Michael Kjörling, michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx - http://michael.kjorling.com/
OpenPGP Fingerprint: 3723 9372 c245 d6a8 18a6 36ac  758F8749 BDE9ADA6
* ASCII Ribbon Campaign: Against HTML Mail, Proprietary Attachments *
* No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings. -*- SM0YBY *

Attachment: pgpd7zIEJps64.pgp
Description: PGP signature