Subject: Re: Should or shouldn't follow RFC2015?

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 14:00:59 +0100 (IST)

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> No, Pine does not know the encodings you mention, so receiving messages
> with those encodings must be a pain to read today.

indeed it is...

especially problematical is that other mailers, eg mutt iirc, follow
the pgp mime standard which makes interoperability extremely
difficult.

i'd /love/ to see support for handling these mime-types properly in
pine.

--paulj

---

From: Joel Boonstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 09:15:19 -0400 (EDT)

> i'd /love/ to see support for handling these mime-types properly in

I have a coworker who uses mutt, and sends PGP (or gpg, I suppose)
encrypted messages on a regular basis.  To get pine to handle them, I
added this to my .procmailrc:

## to handle mutt PGP messages
:0 fw
* ^Content-Type: multipart/encrypted
| formail -i "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII"
##

This seems to work fine for using pgp4pine to decrypt his messages -
previously, they came as attachments and I had to save them and invoke gpg
from the command line to read them.

Since I didn't come up with the above snippet, I don't know if it'll work
for everyone.  I'm using 4.33 on a RedHat box, so YMMV...

-- 
Joel Boonstra
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 22:28:42 +0100 (IST)

> | formail -i "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII"

ah... excellent. very useful tip.

> from the command line to read them.

same here.

the other problem is pine->mutt. As mutt expects multipart/encrypted.
So my mutt using colleague has his own workarounds for that.

Would be nice if multipart/encrypted could be supported.

> for everyone.  I'm using 4.33 on a RedHat box, so YMMV...

thanks for the handy procmail rule!

--paulj