Re: [Evolution] pgp unusable?

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Thu, 2001-11-29 at 22:39, Thomas O'Dowd wrote:
> Evolution currently has problems verifying inline PGP signed messages
> from mailers when they are qp'd by a gateway along the way. Mutt doesn't
> have that problem so I'm suggesting being liberal (as it is inline pgp
> anyway) and unencode first then verify which is what other mailers seem to do.

We *do* decode the text before trying to verify the signature.

> With regards to sending 8bit signed inline pgp emails, I haven't tested
> what is the best thing to do yet, but it looks like sign and then qp
> is what will work with most email clients. I'm sure there are loads
> of people who'll appreciate it if we get this working with the big 
> email clients. I don't have direct access to other windows clients but
> I'll hand create some test emails to friends and see what works.

Based on the fact that you thought evolution *didn't* decode the text
before verifying, when it actually does - I assume that the correct way
is actually the opposite of what you say ;-)

here we are again at the "who's right and who's wrong?" argument. It's a
guessing game, like I already said. And you can never win guessing
games. Period.

If you want this feature, send me a patch. This way if it doesn't always
work, no one can point the finger at me. I don't want to deal with it.
PGP/MIME has gotten enough complaints because other mailers didn't do
*it* right, do you really think that they can all get in-line pgp right
if they can't get PGP/MIME right? Didn't think so.

I declare this the end of the thread, any further emails will be
redirected to /dev/null

Jeff

-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.ximian.com