I don't know. Because they see I had put an effort into stating the
problem? Because they want to see more people use OpenPGP? For fun?
I'm old enough not to /demand/ help on Usenet. I appreciate it when I
get it though -- so thanks!
Thanks. I knew about that one, but was under the impression that it
had been deprecated or removed some years ago. Maybe I confuse it
with when I tried to encrypt to the recipient /and/ myself.
It does work, but (at least in mutt 1.5.13) leaves no traces of the
signing or encryption in the FCC copy. I'd prefer to know if and how
I signed/encrypted a mail I sent. (The interface for deleted
attachments is an example of this done well -- you can clearly see
that there was something there, and that you yourself deleted it
I might try to write a patch which at least adds an X-something:
header for that.
That was actually one reason I didn't bother with the manual. Having a
brief reference is one thing, but talking to real people who have
created, tested and used a real solution for themselves is something
The manual has exactly this to say about those two commands:
<decode-copy> make decoded (text/plain) copy
<decode-save> make decoded copy (text/plain) and delete
And it's not enough -- the manual uses the word "decode" for pure
MIME-related operations too, so it is far from clear that it has to do
with encryption. I wouldn't have guessed it.
Also, it doesn't solve my problem. When I tried decode-save, it
discarded the image/jpeg attachment I had, and in another case some
headers (X-Original-To, Delivered-To, Received, ...) got lost.
I wouldn't want to use it on anything valuable, especially not without
So, I guess mutt/PGP users currently store their received encrypted
mail as they receive it, i.e. encrypted.
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .