[Top] [All Lists]

Re: let's look... Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?

2003-01-24 11:54:46

Hash: SHA1

From: "David Shaw" <dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:08:25AM -0500, Michael Young wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
I think in general that creating a new subtype of text to solve this
I think we've seen in this thread that the "lite" form is not
displayed at all in agents that don't support it.

That's an overstatement.  Several MUAs handled it just fine (and
mutt is clearly going to be changed in the process, so it will also).
(The only failure I saw was Outlook XP, but I may have missed something.)

But, I missed that you were talking specifically about the subtype idea...

Thomas' original suggestion to use UTF8 encoding along with text/plain
works very nicely on several levels.  First, it works without forcing
the MUA author to do anything.  Second, in most cases even if MUA "A"
does it slightly wrong (say, not doing the UTF8), MUA "B" can still
handle it.  It's simple.  It works.  Where is the problem?

The main reason we went down the subtype path was that Ned balked at
using text/plain with extra tags.  (Thomas suggested the tags to let
in-the-know MUAs take automatic action, and Ned balked there, too.)
Experimenting with subtypes was a fine idea, but it hasn't been a
complete success.  I'm happy to back off to text/plain, and I'm happy
with the extra tags.

Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>