Problems with an expired key...

[L. Sassaman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Horacio MG wrote:

> El mié, 15 de mar de 2000, a las 04:52:23 -0800, L. Sassaman dijo:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> > 
> > > > And while you're fussing with config files, fix your email client not to
> > > > use PGP/MIME. :)	
> > > Hey, I'd think that on this list of all places PGP/MIME would be well
> > > regarded.
> > 
> > It is my opinion that PGP/MIME should not exist. Most of the list members
> > probably dislike it as well, though I doubt many share my extreme hatred
> > for it. ASCII-Armored messages are good.
> 
> PGP/MIME is no problem, may be the problem is that either pine doesn't
> handle it well or you haven't configured it to handle it properly.

Not only does pine (as well as many other mailers) not handle it well, but
it is pointless unless you are sending other attachments MIME encoded.

If you were to send a plain text message, with no attachments, would you
use MIME? Then why use MIME for PGP? ASCII-Armored messages are the
standard. And they work very well.
 
> Mutt parses both PGP/MIME and application/pgp well, and I see no trouble
> with it.

Not everyone uses Mutt. You would be laughed at if you spoke up in defence
of Rich Text Email, by saying "Outlook handles both Rich Text and HTML
well," even though that is true.


> For instance, Cristopher's sig output:
> 
> [-- Salida de PGP a continuación (tiempo actual: Thu Mar 16 09:26:04
> 2000) --]
> gpg: Signature made jue 16 mar 2000 01:41:14 CET using DSA key ID
> D843F946
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> [-- Fin de salida PGP --]
> 
> [-- Lo siguiente esta firmado con PGP/MIME --]
> 
> 
> whereas yours:
> 
> [-- Salida de PGP a continuación (tiempo actual: Thu Mar 16 09:30:12
> 2000) --]
> gpg: Signature made jue 16 mar 2000 01:52:33 CET using DSA key ID
> 09AC0A6A
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> 
> [-- Fin de salida PGP --]
> 
> [-- PRINCIPIO DEL MENSAJE FIRMADO CON PGP --]
> 
> 
> So, where's the big difference?  Your mailer could make the difference,
> of course :)

Exactly. And, seeing that there is no significant reason to form a
detached signature when signing a plain text message, I declare Mutt, and
all mailers that implement *only* PGP/MIME for email transport, to be
broken.

Just my opinion, of course. But it's the right one. :) 

__

L. Sassaman

System Administrator                |  "All of the chaos
Technology Consultant               |   Makes perfect sense..."
icq.. 10735603                      |
pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi |              --Joe Diffie



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (GNU/Linux)
Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.

iD8DBQE40TYjPYrxsgmsCmoRAo1lAKD/DE6wYeQxHJ52xSnRXBQbxBXeZgCff39j
iPGZy6fnPy344T+YmYe3XGQ=
=W4XD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----