[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: List postings as attachments

Hall Stevenson wrote:

> For what it's worth (and I use OE to read this list at work),
> the original message from David De Graff showed up with no
> attachments. Shouldn't be a surprise though as it was sent
> with OE, read by OE, and no PGP used.

Right. If you don't PGP-sign your messages, don't send HTML mail, and
make sure OE wraps lines, then OE's outgoing messages are okay.

> -- Paul Johnson's message shows up normally but has one
> attachment: msg.pgp

That's old-style signing, which fails to include attachments in the
signed data. I'm not sure there was ever really a proper standard that
covered that kind of signing.

> -- Adrian von Bidder's message was the "pain in the ass"
> kind... :-) Both the message text and a signature.asc file
> showed up as attachments.

That's modern standards-compliant MIME-based signing, the kind everyone
is supposed to do.

> -- Karsten M Self replied to a message in a different thread
> and his is also the "pain in the ass" kind. It's different
> than Adrian's though. It consisted of a message text
> attachment and a 'ATT00106.dat' attachment.

Same as Adrian's, just different names. I think OE generates those
ATT...dat filenames itself when the MIME data doesn't include a filename
(and there's no reason for a filename here, as it's just a digital
signature, not an attachment).

> I tried a PGP 'plug-in' for OE once but it made no difference.
> I believe it was from McAfee/Network Associates.

Having dealt with engineers at McAfee in the past, I am disinclined to
use anything of theirs ever again. Also, of course, McAfee is primarily
an anti-virus company, which is to say, a bunch of ambulance-chasing
jackasses who profit off fear and go out of their way to generate more
fear so as to generate more profits.

> So, would everyone please re-configure their setup to function
> like Paul Johnson's does ?? :-)

No. My setup is standards-compliant, and you're asking me to break it.

> Paul, care to share your setup
> for others to see ?? Of course, I don't expect anyone to
> change their "my setup ain't broken, yours is" mail program
> for us lowly M$ Outlook and Outlook Express users...

But your setup _is_ broken.

And remember that there are other amusing games that people can play on
users of defective software like OE. Email viruses aside, I could have
made this entire message unreadable to you by simply beginning the text
with "begin  Hall Stevenson  quote:" rather than "Hall Stevenson wrote:",
due to OE's idiotic implementation of automatic uudecoding.

> (if you fail to see the humour or jest in this, I feel sorry
> for you...)

I see the humor in it, but it seems like the defensive kind of humor
that people use when they don't want to admit that they really just
ought to fix their own problems. Your mailer, by any rational standard,
is grossly defective, and its maker refuses to fix the problems, and
also refuses to empower you to fix it yourself (it's closed-source).
It's beyond me why anyone would choose to tolerate that, but it's your
choice to do so.


Attachment: pgpLs0WarV9By.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: