Re: [Evolution] PGP signature as attachment when unverified

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

the toplevel multipart/mixed is what is throwing evolution off. this
isn't really related to s/mime vs pgp, since they both use *just*
multipart/signed. The "problem" is the sending agent is encapsulating
the signed portion within another multipart part.

Jeff

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 06:39, 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 :-)
>
> > 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.
>
> But I also happen to have an email from Damien Sandras (GnomeMeeting
> maintainer), which shows the paperclip (it uses GPP). I read in the
> header:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1201726096=="
>
> And later on:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FDPXKbxcRqZ/6vuwHzwn"
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> [...]
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> [...]
>
> While yours only has (header):
>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1;
> protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature";
>
> And later on:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> [...]
> Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s
> [...]
>
> Is that difference coming from the GPG vs S/MIME used? Or is there
> something else?
> Thanks,