[fwd] Re: PGP/MIME implementors: text mode vs. binary mode? (from: hal@finney.org)

[JP Sugarbroad]

--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:11:56AM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:59:37 -0800
> From: hal@finney.org
> To: roessler@does-not-exist.org, warlord@mit.edu
> Cc: hal@finney.org, ietf-openpgp@imc.org
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME implementors: text mode vs. binary mode?
>=20
> Isn't the real, operational issue here a question of whether trailing
> white space should be hashed?  The choices are to say yes, or no, or it
> depends on the type byte in the signature.
>=20
> I can't help thinking that the distinction between text and binary mode
> is not that useful in solving this problem.  Let's not get hung up on
> the specification incompatibility between PGP 2.X and OpenPGP.

Bah. PGP/MIME is a broken standard anyway. Signing post-CTE data is
simply ASKING for problems.

--=20
Taral <taral@taral.net>
Please use PGP/GPG to send me mail.
"Never ascribe to malice what can as easily be put down to stupidity."

--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjqK+iIACgkQ7rh4CE+nYEmeygCeONwNU6Ur3IBmbGshGNrMSliJ
uKMAnjrJ9ZQAvnLAA4MrFsveJjYhlUi2
=lvsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v--