On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:40:34PM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 04:25:55PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > 4) not really your problem but mutt will not auto verify mail signed
> > this way, you can fix this with a procmail recipe however. (available
> > on request)
>
> Hi Ethan,
>
> Well, since I have to deal with so many broken clients around me at
> work, etc... maybe I ought to just make that request now for that
> procmail recipe. :)
well this does not do anything for sending mail, only when you recieve
lots of in-line signed mail you want autoverified by mutt, but here it
is:
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
* ^-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt"
:0 fBw
* ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
* ^-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign"
}
this seem to work fine for me. i had another varient of this once
that was corrupting mail. this one seems reliable, if anyone sees
anything bad let me know ;-)
> If it's too big to post to the list, feel free to send it in private
> mail or post a location to grab it from.
>
> Any way to get Exim's built-in filtering to do it that you can think of?
> (Trying to avoid procmail...) I'll look at your stuff and see if
> there's any way to do it if you can't think of any...
/me runs postfix and knows nothing about exim sorry. procmail isn't
*that* bad ;-)
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgperl2TjKtBv.pgp
Description: PGP signature