David Shaw wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:29:54PM +0200, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
Blumenthal, Uri wrote:
I am trying to get cleartext-signed PGP/MIME messages produced by PGP
Universal 2.5.3, verified by email clients (Thunderbird-1.5.0.10 +
Enigmail-0.94.2 + GPG-1.4.7).
So far my
From: Sven Radde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:19:25 +0200
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
The comment and version armor fields are both essentially
comments, and are ignored by the OpenPGP protocol. You can change
either of them to whatever you like.
... That seems to
Original Message
From: Robert J. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: GnuPG users gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: comment and version fields.
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:46:12 -0500
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
p.s. of course I've altered his clearsigned post in
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
p.s. of course I've altered his clearsigned post in this example.
But it would still
verify properly. This is my point.
This is a nonissue. I can't think of a stronger way to put it. The
mutability of the comment and version string is well known and
clearly
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not concerned with the technical
user who posts a question to a news list and understands the
issue. I'm wondering about the non-technical (business) user who
gets a plug-in for his email client and then
No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not concerned with the
technical user who posts a question to a news list and understands
the issue. I'm wondering about the non-technical (business) user
who gets a plug-in for his email client and then misinterprets a
modified signature block that
On Monday 02 April 2007 17:34, Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not concerned with the
technical user who posts a question to a news list and understands
the issue. I'm wondering about the non-technical (business) user
