Problems with an expired key...

Horacio MG (Horacio)
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:46:19 +0100

El jue, 16 de mar de 2000, a las 11:29:33 -0800, L. Sassaman dijo:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Horacio MG wrote:
> 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.
isn't ascii-armored an *old* standard and mime a (fairly) *new* standard?
> > 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.
I don't think it's fair to put HTML and MIME on the same level. See, this seems to be as your personal crussade against MIME. I haven't heared anyone complaining about MIME in the way you are doing it. If someone complains about not being able to handle my PGP/MIME sig, no problem, I switch to application/pgp for him and that's about it. The problem comes when sending sig'ed mail to mailing lists, there you can't have it right for everyone. But then again, some people have their own crussade against sending sig'ed mail to mailing lists.
> 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.
As I said earlier on this message (and on my other message as well) mutt handles both. Therefore, why don't you declare broken any mailer which does not implement any of them? Sounds a bit fairer to me.
> Just my opinion, of course. But it's the right one. :)
Of course, everyone's opinion is its own one, and it makes sense that you stand by it. -- Horacio Anno MMDCCLIII aUC Valencia - ESPAŅA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = F4EE AE5E 2F01 0DB3 62F2 A9F4 AD31 7093 4233 7AE6