On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:42:13 -0400, Dan Mundy said:
> this plugin sounds like a neat idea. will it be featured on the
> gnupg.org site?
Sure.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:36:32 +0200, Martin Geisler said:
>
>
>>I don't know how Outlook (not Express) handles things.
>
>
> It won't be possible to verify a signature with Outlook due to the
> fact that it is not possible to get to the raw MIME headers. It might
> be possi
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:16:54 +0200, Sascha Kiefer said:
> The PGP/MIME RFC states that you can first sign and then encrypt the mail.
Doing this on the MIME level allows you to easily strip the encryption
layer while leaving the signature intact.
> In S/MIME it is allowed to first encrypt and the
Werner Koch schrieb:
The first of course.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
Okay, perfekt.
The PGP/MIME RFC states that you can first sign and then encrypt the mail.
In S/MIME it is allowed to first encrypt and then sign the message.
Do you think it's feasible to do the same in PGP/MIME? I think it i
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:45:30 +0200, Kiefer, Sascha said:
> Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of
> rfc2015 and rfc3156.
Correct, 3156 has only minor clarifications.
> So, what is right?
> RFC like:
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5
> prot
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:36:32 +0200, Martin Geisler said:
> I don't know how Outlook (not Express) handles things.
It won't be possible to verify a signature with Outlook due to the
fact that it is not possible to get to the raw MIME headers. It might
be possible to write a plugin which uses heur
Kiefer, Sascha wrote:
>>Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by
>>RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way.
>>
>>David
>
>
> Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of
> rfc2015 and rfc3156.
>
> So, what is right?
>
> RFC like:
>
> Content-Type:
> Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by
> RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way.
>
> David
Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of
rfc2015 and rfc3156.
So, what is right?
RFC like:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5
pro
Dan Mundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Shaw wrote:
>> [... all nice features of PGP/MIME...] Plus, plus, plus.
>
> No minuses, though, i hope?
The only thing I've come across is people using Outlook Express: they
will see an empty mail with two attachments: your message as one
attachment a
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:12:51PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > Plus, plus, plus.
>
> No minuses, though, i hope?
One or two, yes. Mainly that there are programs out there that - even
this many years later - don't understand it. Outlook is the chief
culprit here.
David
David Shaw wrote:
> Plus, plus, plus.
No minuses, though, i hope?
Dan
p.s. i have started using pgp/mime as a default.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mail
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:30:53PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> hey all,
>
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
When at all possible, use PGP/MIME. It's
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:42:51AM +0200, Kiefer, Sascha wrote:
> Hmm.
> I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago.
> The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format
> you are using.
> Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare
> The pgp data as att
Okay;
That's this missing part. Thanks!
Regards,
Sascha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Shaw
> Sent: Sonntag, 5. Juni 2005 01:01
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME
Hmmm...
No, i think sean is also false.
The last mail form ivan boldyrev is encoded right!
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Mundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 14:21
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: GnuPG Clea
Kiefer, Sascha wrote:
>Hmm.
>I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago.
>The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format
>you are using.
>Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare
>The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true.
>Maybe I'm miss
On 9130 day of my life Dan Mundy wrote:
> hey all,
>
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
Clearsigning can be processed by recipient even if his mail c
5 08:26
> To: Dan Mundy; gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
>
>
> Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the
> signature no matter what their system. Some people like to
> use the current window function of PGP and front
Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the signature no
matter what their system. Some people like to use the current window
function of PGP and front-ends for GPG such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is
good for sending mail to many people some of whom have no idea of what
PGP/GPG is. Using
--- Begin Message ---
I'm wondering which kind of signing you did on this mail?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Mundy
> Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 02:31
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signin
20 matches
Mail list logo
