On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 07:12, Geoff Crompton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:56, Tom Cook wrote: > > On 0, Phillip Baker <phil@lchost.co.uk> wrote: > > > Cheers for your reply (although confusingly my mail client has > > > inexplicably munged it and your PGP key into attachments - probably > > > thanks to your mail client labelling it multipart) > > > > *shrug* isn't that how it's supposed to be? > > That is something I have been wondering about recently. I have noticed that > KMail (1.3.2) just puts PGP stuff inline. But mutt (1.3.28i) does multipart > mime attachements for pgp signatures. And each program doesn't understand the > others way of doing it. > > So which is the 'proper' way. Do later versions of mutt/Kmail do it the > 'proper' way? These are 2 legitimate ways of signing a message. I think none of them is more 'proper' than the other. Signing messages as multipart/signed is described in RFC 2015 and KMail really should understand that. My version of mutt seems to support both methods (at least when verifying), but I don't use KMail (Evolution understands both formats just fine by the way). Claudio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part