Re: gpg/pgp noise

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:00:26 +0100, Phil wrote in message 
<[🔎] 4FA90ADA.80309@gmail.com>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08/05/12 12:57, Indulekha wrote:
> > 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? :)
> 
> 
> I'm getting the distinct impression you're not quite following this
> thread as it's written :-)

..me, I follow it in the exact threaded way, my fetchmail fed 
procmail filtered claws-mail presents my d-u mail list folder
to me at the very time I hop in there. ;o) 

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.