Re: PGP/MIME
Spake Dierk Haasis on 7/10/2002, at 19:17:07 +0200: > Sorry, you are mixing something up. PGP and OpenPGP do (more or less) > exactly the same. PGP/MIME is a standard for sending messages and > attachments decrypted. Ummm... yep, that' exactly what I'm asking about. As far as I can tell, the OpenPGP standard also dictates (from inferral) that signatures are to be sent in-line. > For PGP/MIME to work, your e-mail client has to support it (like > Eudora). If it doesn't - like TB! - you have to manually encrypt a > file, then attach it to a mail and then sign it. Yes, and what I'm asking is if TB! does indeed understand PGP/MIME, or if it only understands the current OpenPGP standard. I guess it doesn't... Time to brush up on some procmail... Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
PGP/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Some time ago, I asked about a standard as having PGP signatures be sent as an attachment. Well, I finally found out what I was talking about -- PGP/MIME. The main difference I see between OpenPGP and PGP/MIME is that the PGP signatures are attached as .ATT attachments, and the following is specified in the headers: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="==32168813==" Or: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s9fJI615cBHmzTOP" (Could vary slightly.) Now, I don't much care if TB! supports PGP/MIME for sending e-mail, my main concern is for reading PGP/MIME. I know that I've successfully verified a PGP/MIME signature before, but for the life of me, I can't remember how. Does anyone else know if TB! supports reading PGP/MIME signatures, and how to get it to verify them? For informational purposes, I'm using TB!1.60q with PGP6.5.8ckt. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/ iQA/AwUBPSxIfDJoVhirPLR1EQMY+wCfZ1BVstOsg9vCyItkmf9P9VJyJFgAn0zV oT/zu6ie+VNINB0cE5gz9Cx0 =7a0Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
Spake Thomas F on 6/24/2002, at 22:27:50 +0700: > I believe "idle" in compu-speak is measured in nanoseconds. Again, it > might have been redefined in Redmond. Yep. I ask it to do it if it's been idle for 3 minutes. > But then, checking every 60 seconds is rather often... if I did get > mail every 60 seconds, I would probably not be able to read that fast. > ;-) Over here, every 5 minutes is the fastest I've ever used. I usually get somewhere between two and ten messages every couple of minutes. On a bad day, it's upwards of forty. On a good day (or a day in which things are severely broken), I get a couple of messages every ten minutes. (I work for an ISP...) Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
Spake Thomas F on 6/21/2002, at 08:17:47 +0700: > And why would Windows care about the actual definition? MS could just > have redefined it... ;-) And just for informational purposes... I left my computer all weekend, but apparently, since I check my mail every 60 seconds, my computer is not 'idle'. So I have to either re-define idle, or take out the idle check. :( Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
Spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 6/21/2002, at 17:12:42 -0700: > i-dle, adj., idler, idlest, v. idled, idling --adj. > 1. unemployed, or doing nothing > 2. unoccupied > 3. not kept busy or in use or operation > 4. habitually doing nothing or avoiding work > 5. of no real worth, importance, or significance > 6. baseless or groundless > 7. frivolous or vain > 8. futile > 9. useless > Syn. indolent, lazy, slothful > Random House American College Dictionary Hey, Windows may be slow, but slothful? Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
Spake Ricardo M. Reyes on 6/21/2002, at 15:57:52 -0300: ACM>> It's kind of cumbersome to be deleting the ini file all the time > you can use an scheduler (I'm sure there is one with every version of > windows, I don't remember it's name) to delete that file every 5 > minutes, for example. I've set my scheduler to (hopefully) delete the file every five minutes, but only if the computer has been idle for three minutes. Now let's see how Windows defines 'idle' Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
Spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 6/21/2002, at 23:55:22 +0700: > Hello Damian, DG>> This is the end of my signature. DG>> - Begin GPG Signature - DG>> DG>> -- End GPG Signature -- DG>> Which is much easier to read. > Agreed. It is a much-critisised issue, I I don't know how they could > reprogram the editor to make that exception. But the work-around is to > leave a character, for example a dot, in that line. Hrmm... Okay, I'll try that as well. (I've never programmed an editor, but I'd like to think that this be a bug... Perhaps I'll submit it.) > I don't think GPG is covered in the RFC's at all... OpenPGP Message Format: RFC2440 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2440.txt But I don't see anything about e-mail attachments in there. I remember something on a mutt mailing list (or README or Changelog or something) about the format of the inclusion of the PGP/GPG signature, just hoping someone here could refresh my memory. Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Questions
I can handle the GPG stuff for now, it's not a big deal. I'll just learn to type my passphrase faster. ;) However... Spake Thomas F on 6/21/2002, at 11:41:40 +0700: > I believe he means in the context of hitting PgDown. However, by > hitting PgDown, he keeps actively pushing the end-of-message mark > further down, rather than passively detecting it. What I mean is partially that, and partially that because TB! sees the EOM as being the last line of text in the message, any GPG signatures come directly after that. So you have something like: This is the end of my signature. -- Begin GPG Signature --- End GPG Signature --- This looks a lot cleaner than it actually is. I know it's only a cosmetic bug, but I can't tell TB! that the last line in my message is actually a blank line, to give something like this: This is the end of my signature. - Begin GPG Signature - -- End GPG Signature -- Which is much easier to read. Now granted, signatures will be stripped from most MUAs that understand PGP/GPG, but for those that don't, it gets confusing to read. On that note, I seem to remember something about the OpenPGP specifying how the signature was to be included -- was it by attachment, or by inclusion at EOM? I don't see anything in the RFC... Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: SMTP Transport configuration
Spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 6/20/2002, at 23:05:02 +0200: > You do need. > You'll have to import it's public key into a newly created entry in > 'Root CA'. The latter _is_ important. > Moreover the CN in certificate has to match exactly the server name > you've entered in account settings. > So if the cert is (self) signed for 'mail.me.com' you'll have to use > 'mail.me.com' in account!!! Already done. I'll try to find out how to import the public key... DG>> And secondly, SMTP AUTH seems to be broken? > cannot confirm. DG>> Using standard authentication, > Should work. And works exactly as it is supposed to. DG>> I log in fine via AUTH LOGIN. If I require MD5 login authentication (radio DG>> button option), I don't try anything at all: > Quite normal. > The Bat! uses 'CRAM-MD5' not 'DIGEST-MD5'. So if you _require_ it to > use 'CRAM-MD5' it cannot authenticate at all as this method ain't > offered by your MTA. > 'AUTH PLAIN' & 'AUTH LOGIN' should work nevertheless. Ah -- thanks. I'll recompile the libraries to provide CRAM-MD5. Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
SMTP Transport configuration
And a couple more questions on the Transport configuration, SMTP section. I can't seem to get TLS to work properly with my mail server. I can see that it transmits the certificate, but then dies very shortly afterwards. It's a self-signed cert -- do I need to import it into TB!? Here's a snippet from the maillog: Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: NOQUEUE: connect from pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18] Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: AUTH: available mech=LOGIN PLAIN ANONYMOUS DIGEST-MD5 CRAM-MD5, allowed mech=PLAIN LOGIN DIGEST-MD5 Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: g5KJii7T069322: Milter (milter-amavis): init success to negotiate Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: g5KJii7T069322: Milter: connect to filters Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: g5KJii7T069322: milter=milter-amavis, action=connect, continue Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: STARTTLS=server, error: accept failed=0, SSL_error=1, timedout=0 Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: STARTTLS=server: 69322:error:140943F2:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert unexpected message:/usr/src/secure/lib/libssl/../../../crypto/openssl/crypto/../ssl/s3_pkt.c:964:SSL alert number 10 Jun 20 15:44:44 smtp sm-mta[69322]: g5KJii7T069322: pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18] did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to MTA Any ideas? - And secondly, SMTP AUTH seems to be broken? Using standard authentication, I log in fine via AUTH LOGIN. If I require MD5 login authentication (radio button option), I don't try anything at all: 220 smtp SMTP Sendmail 8.12.2/8.12.2;.Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:46:22 -0400 (EDT) EHLO plebeian 250-smtp Hello pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18], pleased to meet you 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-PIPELINING 250-8BITMIME 250-SIZE 250-DSN 250-ETRN 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN DIGEST-MD5 250-STARTTLS 250-DELIVERBY 250.HELP MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Does this strike anyone else as odd? (The dump is from a tcpdump.) Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
Re: Message Editor
Spake Marck D Pearlstone on 6/20/2002, at 16:56:48 +0100: > Hi Damian, > Quick Templates are your friend. Give them love and homage! :) I am a *HUGE* fan of the Quick Templates. I'm already abusing them. > Put your signatures (no cut mark - you know, dash-dash-space-enter) > into quick templates, one for each, pre-formatted as required and > containing the macro %ISSIGNATURE. Give them a simple handle, e.g. > TECH, GPGS. In your main templates you can use (e.g.) > %QINCLUDE="TECH". There's a bonus here. You can change sigs on the > fly. In the middle of a message. Type TECH and *shazamm*, > everything below the cut mark vanishes and is replaced by your TECH > sig without even ruffling the cursor position. Odd that you should say that -- I've got a TECH signature already set up. I /had/ %QINCLUDE="TECH" before, but didn't want it on all outbound messages. The bit is, in poor english, f*ing amazing. That saves my problem, period. > You know - you did it! ;-) Thanks. Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/
