Hi Simon, || On 10 Apr 2001 15:23:24 +0200 || Simon Josefsson wrote: sj> Well, there are at least two standards here. :-) Aren't there always? :-) sj> FWIW, people I communicate with that uses Outlook and some PGP sj> plugin does not handle PGP/MIME (RFC2015). The plugin perform sj> PGP-operations on each MIME part individually and only insert the sj> PGP output instead of the MIME content of that part. I don't sj> think it even modifies MIME headers. Yuk. Yikes. This doesn't sound very standard-ish. >> Exactly. Which is stupid. Unless the others are also you (which is >> not the standard case, imho), they won't be able to read the mail >> then. So why bother sending it to them at all? sj> I've no idea. :-) I changed it, it should look at Cc and Bcc now. :-))) >> ...does pretty much the same. But only almost. It only encrypts >> the following part, not the whole message. When I encrypt I >> normally want the whole thing encrypted... otherwise you run a >> high chance to insert another part and accidentally lose >> encryption that way. sj> Ah, yes, I agree. Those commands are made to only sign or sj> encrypt the current MML part, but maybe that's not very sj> intuitive. Perhaps they could be changed? I think they should be changed / renamed. The default should be "encrypt everything" when selecting encryption. "Just encrypt this part" should be harder to find / have to be selected specifically. Just my 2 cents... Regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)