How to set wrap for textmode

Ingo Klöcker
Sun May 6 13:36:01 2001

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday, 6. May 2001 01:40, Nick Andriash wrote:

> On May 5, 2001, at 10:29:23 AM, Johan Wevers wrote:
> JW> Client's editors invoked by mailreaders should not do such things
> JW> without asking.
> I'm not sure if I explained myself properly. When you draft a message
> and send it, it has to be wrapped, does it not? That wrapping in most
> cases (TB!'s WYSIWYG Editor uses hard returns so there is no behind
> the scenes editing) takes place *after* the message is sent, and
> again in most cases, after it has also been signed. Result? Failed
> signatures.
This is of course due to bad message handling (and because many Windows MUAs weren't designed to work with PGP/GnuPG). IMHO the right way of doing it is as follows: 1.) You write your message. 2.) You hit the send button. 2.a) Optionally the MUA wraps the message. 2.b) The message is clearsigned (as it is, no wrapping here). 2.c) The message is sent. 3.) The receiver gets the message. 4.) The receiver reads the message. 4.a) The signature is verified. 4.b) Now the message is wrapped for viewing. Two problems could occur: 2.a happens after 2.b This is as I already said due to MUAs which lack real PGP/GnuPG integration and where you have to use a plugin or some external program to sign the message before you hit the send button. => This problem might be circumvented by making PGP/GnuPG wrap the message. But it would be better if the plugin or external program which works as "connection" between the MUA and PGP/GnuPG would take care of this (and you already mentioned that GnuPGShell actually does it). 4.a happens after 4.b This is also due to MUAs with a bad or no PGP/GnuPG integration. => This problem can't be circumvented because there will always be someone who wraps the lines after less characters than you thought, i.e. people who are visually impaired and who therefore use very large fonts.
> JW> It's nut gnupg's responisbility to bypass the bugs of other
> editors or JW> mailreaders.
I totally agree with Johan.
> No, but if GPG is going to sign the message before it's wrapped, then
> the signature will fail because the text has been altered. GPG must
> then account for that by somehow making sure nothing happens to the
> text once it's been signed... which is where a feature like PGP's
> wrapping comes into play.
I disagree. If you want to make sure that nothing happens to the text once it's been signed you can't use clearsigning. Or you should use another MUA.
> JW> And besides that, the sender of a message can't know how the
> receiver JW> will wrap. If he's affraid about that he should format
> the message JW> himself before signing.
> But how does he do that if the formatting of the message doesn't take
> place until after he's hit the Send button? Perhaps this kind of
> thing doesn't take place in Unix style Mail Clients. <shrug>
MUAs with a good integration of PGP/GnuPG (like KMail for example ;-)) sign the message after it's been formatted. So this problem only occurs with MUAs which weren't designed to work with PGP/GnuPG. Regards, Ingo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see iD8DBQE69R9BGnR+RTDgudgRAg6WAJ46U6YzZCBMhfzn7ffXAfQKZ2TEFACfbdBQ rCK3zn9Q8fsMv2W64fJbolE= =EEKN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----