[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP attachments (was: NEVER open attachments)
- To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP attachments (was: NEVER open attachments)
- From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:00:09 -0300
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> inline signing sucks, because there are not many mailers which can
> verify inline signings.
Actually, there is a procmail workaround (for those who can use it) for
this issue:
# PGP
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
* ^-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt"
:0 fBw
* ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
* ^-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign"
}
- --
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAYsnJpdyWzQ5b5ckRAtX+AJ9JvBpjHwh5atIZAY8y8od8Vlg4vwCfaQxp
ibXbv7rYwn0A4uba5wO3C+E=
=J//X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html