Re: [tlug] Followup on mutt and gpg

[Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com>]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:11:11 +0900, Ulrich Plate <plate@example.com> squashed
this out of the keyboard:

> or variations of this. WTF? Are we signing or not? KMail says I do, you 
> don't, Sylpheed says you sign, I don't. Could somebody please shed some
> light on this?

Sylpheed is RFC-wotsit compliant in that it does PGP/MIME.

Mutt (patched) and KMail have broken their RFC-wotsit compliancy in order to
become OE-compliant and "sign" ASCII-armoured.

From an RFC point of view, I am signing and you are not.

From a M$ point of view, you are signing as long as the required plugin is
attached to OE (how many OE users are going to think of that?) otherwise you
are adding a few lines of gobbledygook, I am not signing.

I can see that a war is going to break out over which signing method should
be used. There are arguments for and against both methods.

This is a tech list, and most of the people I communicate with are techies.
Furthermore, I've always flaunted my "internet standards compliancy" as an
argument why someone should buy a website from me rather than from the
neighbour who does them with FrontPage and prevents non-IE users from
viewing them. Therefore, I'm going to advocate standards compliancy once
again and vote that we do PGP/MIME.

-- 
G. Stewart   --   gstewart@example.com
                  gstewart@example.com
Registered Linux user #284683

GnuPG key  : BA3D01C6 (pgp.mit.edu)
Fingerprint: C3DF C686 6572 6E59 E3E4  0F40 2B9A 2218 BA3D 01C6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seen in the classified ads:
NICE PARACHUTE: NEVER OPENED - USED ONCE

Attachment: pgp00020.pgp
Description: PGP signature