Re: [Evolution] Inline GPG/PGP messages should be supported!

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

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.
>
> Hi again!
>
> 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?

[snip]
> > I strongly suggest that support for inline GPG be restored, in some
> > form.
>
> 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.

Jeff

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