Re: [Evolution] Inline GPG/PGP messages should be supported!
- From: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>
- To: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <avbidder fortytwo ch>
- Cc: evolution ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Inline GPG/PGP messages should be supported!
- Date: 06 Jan 2003 14:42:04 -0500
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 14:26, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:49, Steven P. Auerbach wrote:
I recently stated that GPG/PGP messages from myself were correctly
decrypted in Evolution 1.2.1, but messages from others are not. A
reply from vbi clarified the problem, pointing out that that stated
that earlier versions had support for inline PGP, but that this has
been dropped, because the related problem of reliably verifying inline
signatures is not solvable. Most GPG-encrypted messages sent to me are
inline, so dropping support for them makes Evolution basically
unusable for reading GPG-encrypted messages. KMail handles such
messages just fine, so I don't believe there is any fundamental issue.
There are no fundamental issues with inline encrypted messages - this
one is only the implementation problem of the MUA being required to scan
the message body.
actually, you are slightly wrong here. what's the content-type of the
data that is in the encrypted blob?
I strongly suggest that support for inline GPG be restored, in some
All this said, I agree with you: inline pgp should be supported. Thanks
to evolutions bad performance in interoperability with other mail
agents, I have actually much more PGP/MIME signed messages failing than
I have inline signed messages fail. For all the theoretical benefits of
MIME and the pitfalls of inline pgp usage, I find this really sad.
apparently you aren't using a new enough evolution.
Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc.
fejj ximian com - www.ximian.com
] [Thread Prev