Commenting the OpenPGP RFC (was: not-dash-escaped option ?)

[Toxik - Fabian Rodriguez]

Werner,

No need to be rude. Why didn't you simply mention OpenPGP/MIME in the first
place ? I hope you're not in that workgroup too, rejecting end-users
comments on behalf of all involved.

The MUA or patch files have nothing to do with this option, the fact is that
GPG produces signed data that differs from the original and I thought it
useful to report it. The RFC could also mention OpenPGP/MIME (an addendum?).
I think I've made my point, and I'll understand if you want to simply ignore
my remarks.

>> Would it be possible for the MAN page of GPG to be updated to reflect
this,
>> instead of the (unix/patch files)-centric view of its usage ?
>This feature is *only* useful for patch files - and it assumes such a
semantic.

The man page is simply not accurate in respect to the RFC, which you also
ignore. Can't this be updated in the man page but also FAQ/other docs ?

It's dad to see these last emails don't encourage participation, my
apologies if I offended you by thinking I could contribute in this area
(RFC/documentation).

Later,

Fabian Rodriguez - Toxik Technologies Inc.
www.Toxik.com - OpenPGP ID: 0x5AF2A4D5