who are you again?

[M. Drew Streib]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 12:32:19PM -0700, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
> I guess Mutt can be configured to sign messages without using the MIME
> format, but the manual says (in bold) that this format is "strongly
> deprecated."  Anyone know why?

Is a religious war, partly, but mutt does have merit in that claim.

For one thing, attachments can't be signed with the inline method in
the same way, so the attached signatures work better for those. 
It also seems cleaner to have a signature attached that won't affect
the rest of the message at all, but is rather an extraneous piece
to those that don't care about it.

I know it doesn't matter to some people, but Outlook's inability to
properly display the text part of a multipart message is a serious
flaw on Microsoft's part.

- -drew

- -- 
M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org> | http://dtype.org/
FSG <dtype@freestandards.org>    | Linux International <dtype@li.org>
freedb <dtype@freedb.org>        | SourceForge <dtype@sourceforge.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjtprAoACgkQg2i7WWb7wYxXfgCeOv5NAFvP4syi2YdtpUHTuC/+
sLUAoIi+Sg8qU81ohT6KkEVFQY1OQeJv
=GhAI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----