Re: gpg/pgp noise
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti:
> > Indulekha:
> >>
> >> No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete
> >> configuration....
> >
> > This is inline vs. MIME:
> >
> > http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html
> >
> > J.
>
> And that page forgets the problems in MIME.
>
> PGP/MIME requires headers, message and the signature.asc to be
> verified. Some mailing list programs mess up with the headers and this
> way make PGP/MIME signatures unverifiable.
>
> In INLINE, the signature is in message and it doesn't require headers
> to be verified so it's harder to be messed up by mailing list software.
>
> - --
> Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 4DB53CFE82A46728
> Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
> http://mkaysi.github.com/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPqQk4AAoJEE21PP6CpGcofI4QAJCvZvkMdD3j+u50lychq1uI
> z/6y09J2yksnlTePk+E1XMGTdAuMdYqpykJtpVFugUDTIUHXpH6uFThwC6yoIsN+
> CYLOW7WLcD2P+D026Q4ZH4uYoBVMW3z7bVYBxbm+3E4jAZfFjOXVF2ngpbUY3sAH
> OrnSFz+cwey4OYmwevvpUFhDyzZauOGsw+A1B8s97SsnwYn0jJlNx8Fq0sBIZHso
> Q4XoVY+3KNeyjnDfLrpG/SIoHZsRKqrrTLN/nKO9PYaoQVyCDmhcH9YSQLRrK2Wi
> +ZpC8bePguGWw/jAQz7k6aqwaRR9pRWXXEGPb9cdLp+cjOCNgJF2kmrH9QPGrZ2A
> /QZv+TdTU8E0YpBUeR6YF1WnpzqjHCGcP5ab7SfR912GOfBdH43Xk7FPlciljQoZ
> sbPuwsFmo8Ixx2NKkfczsvkwtR7iIJLK//G+Tv5PUp4Ce5JPPflOC198CN1N7DF4
> S3L6SgXT2CxtCGbnI1fkJRGh2DSJ0V+GvIIk4otHdIitvE6yzDZiWk6il7CCdDab
> /rnNaYN/699szwVHYScZuNS1XkjrPfPIcVNtxTPFYWPPIao4fndkYtumLYxoXX5o
> xK3OoQe4Hc7igkcBN2xlejP+SBC2dBBlP4cO/gYWLV/ZkKthwef7EFXW2uMGquLZ
> rgPVFfkhtLf9j2KSvxv6
> =OXcs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Well, all I know is that Jochen Spieker is able to use it without
being intrusive....
Maybe you should try to follow his example?
:)
--
❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
Indulekha
Reply to: