On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:48:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> > Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be beneficial to
> > also accept binary ".sig" files as an alternative to ".asc" files, for
> > example as produced with "gpg -b".
> There is no need for that, you can convert from ASCII armored to
> binary signatures and the other way around easily.
True. But why you want to limit to one format between .sig and .asc?