After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 215083 - gpg message signing should offer 'inline' or 'attachment' option for signature
gpg message signing should offer 'inline' or 'attachment' option for signature
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 210041
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
unspecified
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Triage Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2001-11-11 14:15 UTC by Marc Prud'hommeaux
Modified: 2001-11-12 03:37 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Marc Prud'hommeaux 2001-11-11 14:15:41 UTC
Package: Evolution
Priority: Minor
Version: 0.99.0
Synopsis: gpg message signing should offer 'inline' or 'attachment' option for signature
Bugzilla-Product: Evolution
Bugzilla-Component: Mailer

Description:
Currently, when you gpg sign or encrypt an e-mail, it uses the
'attachment' style, where a message is sent with the signature attached
as a separate file. Unfortunately, both pine and Outlook Express 6 will
make the message appear blank with two separate attachments (one test,
and the signature). This makes adoption of using signing and encryption
more difficult, since you then need to explain the the recipient that
they need to open the text attachment (of course, you can't explain it
to them in a signed e-mail!).

It would be nice if evolution allowed the old-style inline pgp/gpg
signature, which is deprecated and looks ugly, but which will show up in
all e-mail clients.



Unknown reporter: marc@apocalypse.org, changed to bugbuddy-import@ximian.com.

Comment 1 Heath Harrelson 2001-11-12 03:37:03 UTC
This has been discussed in a number of PGP/GPG-related bug reports, 
including bug 204091, bug 204486, and so on.  Apparently RFC 2051 
specifies the attachment behavior, so it stays.

However, I'll mark this bug as a duplicate of bug 210041, which is a 
feature request for just this behavior.  Maybe if enough people 
scream "me too" this will get implemented post 1.0.



*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 210041 ***