-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> At least Thunderbird openly invites plugins and Enigmail is a good one.
>
> Let Patrick explain you why there are still problems.
The user interface may be nice indeed, and
Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My conclusion is that X- was never required by the standard and that
> after the 19 years the IETF realized that there was no need for it.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
--
Steven E. Harris
___
Gnup
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> At least Thunderbird openly invites plugins and Enigmail is a good one.
Let Patrick explain you why there are still problems.
Have you ever tried to work with the Mozilla Foundation on allowing
better integration of certain plugins? For exam
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Was there some change in this prescription? If so, from where? I hadn't
> heard about "X-" falling from use.
The current standard, RFC2822 does not mention it anymore:
3.6.8. Optional fields
Fields may appear in messages that are otherw
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In RFC 822 there was X-, in RFC 2822 it has been removed.
April 2001? Apparently this RFC had not yet been published in the cave
within which I must be living.
> once you want to standardize an experimental header, you have to break
> the deployment
"Steven E. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, the X prefix is not anymore required for user defined headers.
>
> Was there some change in this prescription? If so, from where? I hadn't
> heard about "X-" falling from use.
In RFC 822 there was
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 10:51:15AM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> In this regard Thunderbird is no better than Outlook!
At least Thunderbird openly invites plugins and Enigmail is a good one.
A.
--
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP: 0x46399138
od zwracania uwagi na detale są lekarze, adwokaci, programiśc
Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, the X prefix is not anymore required for user defined headers.
Was there some change in this prescription? If so, from where? I hadn't
heard about "X-" falling from use.
--
Steven E. Harris
___
Gnupg-u
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> X-Gpgol-content-type: application/pgp-encrypted
Well, the X prefix is not anymore required for user defined headers.
But that is a detail.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gn
On 8/7/07, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Problem 1: key signatures. He says he couldn't figure out what he
> needed to do with the keys. Did he need to sign them? Trust them?
> What's validity and otrust again? Who should be set up as a trusted
> introducer? Why wasn't the cur
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> What precisely would you need (or send)? I would be open to implement
>> such a "solution" in Enigmail, if it helps!
>
> I am considering to have a new header like
>
> Gpgol-content-type: application/pgp-encrypted
>
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> What precisely would you need (or send)? I would be open to implement
> such a "solution" in Enigmail, if it helps!
I am considering to have a new header like
Gpgol-content-type: application/pgp-encrypted
to supplement the Outlook generated
Werner Koch wrote:
>> Problem 2: PGP/MIME. Correspondents who were using PGP/MIME for
>> attachments found massive interoperability problems. Apparently,
>> Enigmail has an idiosyncratic way of doing PGP/MIME which causes
>> heartache and woe for non-Enigmail users. (I haven't confirmed this;
>>
Werner Koch wrote:
> So today the question is "Why Diffie can't encrypt" ;-)
Not quite Whit Diffie, but not that far away from him, either. :)
> Just "lsign" all keys or let someone sign all keys and assign him
> ultimate trust. That is the easiest ad-hoc way.
Right, I'm not disputing that the
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Anyway. The problem, as he said: "forty computer security professionals
> can't use GnuPG among them because the [cognitive] overhead is too much."
So today the question is "Why Diffie can't encrypt" ;-)
> Problem 1: key signatures. He says
"Robert J. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway. The problem, as he said: "forty computer security professionals
> can't use GnuPG among them because the [cognitive] overhead is too much."
Sounds strange to me... but, then, I am not a security pro...
> Problem 2: PGP/MIME. Corresponden
(Two of the three points mentioned in this email are Enigmail-specific.
However, the worst one is an OpenPGP problem, and one that probably
deserves more attention, which is why I'm posting it to gnupg-users.)
I'm sitting in the Hampton Room of the Sheraton Boston right now
attending a meeting of
17 matches
Mail list logo
