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

JP Sugarbroad taral at taral.net
Wed Feb 14 22:36:43 CET 2001

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:11:56AM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:59:37 -0800
> From: hal at finney.org
> To: roessler at does-not-exist.org, warlord at mit.edu
> Cc: hal at finney.org, ietf-openpgp at imc.org
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME implementors: text mode vs. binary mode?
> 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.
> 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.

Taral <taral at taral.net>
Please use PGP/GPG to send me mail.
"Never ascribe to malice what can as easily be put down to stupidity."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20010214/12efd1bd/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list