Re: gpg/pgp noise
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha kirjoitti:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
> 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti:
>>>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen
>>>> wrote: 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, all I know is that Jochen Spieker is able to use it
>>>> without being intrusive.... Maybe you should try to follow
>>>> his example? :)
>
> If I used PGP/MIME, my signatures couldn't be verified on Ubuntu
> mailing lists (I am on 5 of them if I recall correctly), nor
> Enigmail mailing list nor gnupg-user mailing lists nor many
> others. This is small list of those MLs, which I mean with
> http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/Clearsigning.html .
>
>
> I see... so the people on the *proper* msiling lists will just
> have to suffer then, eh? :\
>
I don't understand how those other mailing lists are inproper.
- --
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/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=4XGK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: