Re: [Evolution] PGP signature as attachment when unverified

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 12:39 +0100, Alexandre Aractingi wrote:
> Le mercredi 17 novembre 2004 à 12:50 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
> > correctness of the signature has nothing to do with the presence of the
> > paperclip icon in the message-list.
>
> That I would expect, I also thought it was weird :-)
The determination of what is and what isn't an attachment is a lot harder than it first seems.  For example, a multipart/related message containing jpeg images shouldn't be considered attachments since they should be referenced by the html.   Although if the multipart/related html is broken then they will be shown as attachments anyway - it is far too complex to have to parse the whole message and all of its possibilities just for a little flag.  So it should only be considered a hint.

AFAIK its better than it was at least.  IMAP vs local mail uses a separate block of code though so the algorithm might not match exactly.
> > I believe that local mail won't show a paperclip if the message is a
> > multipart/signed, while imap is bugged and shows a paperclip icon for
> > multipart/signed messages.
>
> Weird... I currently view your mail in a local mailbox (from POP3) and
> no paperclip shows up. I moved it on my IMAP dir and it is still ok.

> While yours only has (header):
>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1;
> protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
Yes, this is just 's/mime', the other is gpg.

--

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com> "Free Software, putting the Free back in Free Market." Novell's Evolution and Free Software Developer