On 18 August 2006 13:39, Max Bowsher wrote: > The RFCs indicate that it is the encoded form which is signed and verified.
<boggle> You're kidding! No wonder it's so fragile. I'd consider it bad architecture to sign/verify a non-canonical representation. > The problem is that the sourceware mailer is decoding the MIME part and > re-encoding it into a subtly different form. > > It's irrelevant that the two encoded forms happen to decode to the same > result, since it is the encoded form which is signed. Yes, of course it is in that case. > I feel I do fully understand the situation. So do I. You should definitely have a word with overseers, although there may be some good reason for the reformatting, perhaps related to the requirements of the web archives. We'll just have to see. > Are you saying that you got a verification error for my message with > Message-ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ? > That would be bizarre, since it verifies fine for me. Yeh, but it's just down to Outlook munging the text when it exports it. Why can't M$ software ever just save your data, rather than tampering with it because it thinks it knows better than you what it should be? Feh! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/