The fact that very few can/do create/verify multipart/signed email is
mostly a statement on the extremely sad state of security on the
Internet; to which I guess I'm contributing by not signing my mail :-(
The use of authenticating tehcnology (even if it is just to
authenticate that two messages came from the same nym) should be
encouraged, not blocked.
Donald
===================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
155 Beaver Streeet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Milford, MA 01757 USA +1 508-634-2066(h) +1 508-261-5434(w)
From: Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:03:16 PST."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 07:55:56 -0500
>>>>>> "hardie" == hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hardie> Example:
>
> hardie> A multipart/signed message containing a pgp signature known to
> hardie> some/all members of this list. As, for example, the ietf registrar pgp
> hardie> signature (see http://www.ietf.org/ietf-registrar.asc).
>
> Of the subset that can process PGP, a very small number can actually
>process multipart/signed. I have never got mailcrypt.el to do it,
>the Euroda and Outlook PGP plug-ins don't do it. The only ones that I know do
>it are PINE, ELM and EXMH.
> So, such a message would be better done as a straight clear-signed message.
>
> :!mcr!: | Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
> Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
> Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
