Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 21:10:45 schrieb David Shaw: > It is not currently possible. The code to do it is trivial, but nobody has > really pushed for it before.
Even if the next GnuPG version allowed to do that it might be almost useless if the older and other implementations do not show it (cannot show it at all). But I don't know how they react to such a signature packet. Notations can be seen (and set) in old and other implementations (are not shown by default, though). However this may be done: It makes sense that GnuPG prints a hint/warning if such a standard notation is used even if notations are not shown. > and are not well specified (0x40 sigclass - is it a binary > signature? a text signature?). How is this a problem? Does it matter for that purpose (or any other) how a signature is encoded (does "text signature" mean --armor?)? Hauke -- PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
