[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?

2003-01-22 16:43:39

On 2003-01-22 14:30:48 -0500, Michael Young wrote:

This only seems useful if you convince *forward-looking* user
agents to adopt it, for the benefit of those using naive user
agents.  That seems unlikely, as many of them have picked up on
PGP/MIME, and would view this as a step backwards.  But I'm happy
for you to write it up.

Maybe I should explain the rationale somewhat more.  First of all,
with mutt, we generally try to parse things as late as possible --
scanning text/plain for signs of encrypted or signed material is an
action which explicitly has to be triggered by the user.  From that
point of view, having a separate content type is certainly the thing
to do.

On the other hand, we had lots of complaints when we were using an
application/ content type for inline PGP messages (from those who
insisted in sending and receiving inline messages).  So we were
looking for a way to generate inline messages which can (1) be
handled by users with pgp-agnostic user agents, and (2) be
recognized as PGP-messages early in the parsing process.  A MIME
parameter for text/plain looked like an easy way to do this.

On 2003-01-22 13:29:07 -0800, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

I never suggested any such thing. What I suggest was a different
subtype of text.

Thanks for that suggestion.  Will look into it.

Thomas Roessler                        <roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org>