NotDashEscaped, what?

NotDashEscaped, what?

[Michaël Cadilhac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1660 bytes --]

Hi !

I see more and more « NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this
message » in the shown text of mails.  I think it may be a little bug.

The messages read as follow :

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

  > So I really fail to see the value of those macros.

If nothing else, they're an alternative.  I do agree that #'featurep is
a better way to go, but these macros are an alternative nonetheless.

=2D-=20
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|       SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need.       |
|         Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good!          |
|------------------------------------<steve@sxemacs.org>---|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: The SXEmacs Project <http://www.sxemacs.org>
Comment: Eicq - The SXEmacs ICQ Client <http://www.eicq.org/>

iEYEARECAAYFAkbRk6IACgkQHSfbS6lLMAP3GgCfbY0DELQbMdrovgwOILPlvdI1
Px0An2BhANnKnsW4N5q86ve4I+ALnAqn
=3D0wSP
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Maybe we should discard in Gnus such a sub-header, I think what's here
<http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/gnupg/rfc2440-7.html> means that it could be
discarded safely.

Any strong or weak opinion?

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  Would someone please DTRT with this,  |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |        then ACK?                       |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |          -- Richard Stallman           |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |                                   -  --'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Daiki Ueno]

Hi,

2007/8/27, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
> "Daiki Ueno" <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:
> Hi! Is it on purpose that you removed the ding ML?

No, I just sent it via gmail which I'm not familiar with.

> > 2007/8/27, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
> >> I see more and more « NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this
> >> message » in the shown text of mails.  I think it may be a little bug.
> >>
> >> The messages read as follow:
> >>
> >> =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
> >>
> > [...]
> >> =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe we should discard in Gnus such a sub-header, I think what's here
> >> <http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/gnupg/rfc2440-7.html> means that it could be
> >> discarded safely.
> >>
> >> Any strong or weak opinion?
> >
> > IMO, decoding dash-escaped text is a task of GnuPG (libraries), not of Gnus.
>
> Well, I really don't know what I'm talking about, but the point is that
> I don't want to see this NotDashEscaped. It's quite disturbing.  So,
> maybe GnuPG is the culprit...

Normally GnuPG does not insert a NotDashEscaped header.  I guess that
the sender (Steve Youngs) has a line "not-dash-escaped" in his
~/.gnupg/gpg.conf.

> However, I wasn't talking about decoding dash-escaped text, but more
> remove a sub-header (NotDashEscaped) together with its contents.

Yes, I know that.  However, if NotDashEscaped is removed, we should
also treat the original text as *not* dash-escaped.  Otherwise, the
contents you will see is not what signed in the clearsigned message.
I personally think this is not a big problem though.

> > For example, the following code returns the original text which is
> > properly decoded by GnuPG, regardless of the "clearsigned message" is
> > dash-escaped or not.
> >
> > (epg-verify-signature (epg-make-context) "clearsigned message")
>
> I don't understand what point you want to make, sorry.

I was saying that it is straightforward to make use of GnuPG's output
rather than to decode/reformat dash-escaped text by Gnus itself.

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Michaël Cadilhac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

"Daiki Ueno" <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> 2007/8/27, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
>> "Daiki Ueno" <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:
>> Hi! Is it on purpose that you removed the ding ML?
>
> No, I just sent it via gmail which I'm not familiar with.

Yeah, I know that. Such a PIT posterior.

> However, if NotDashEscaped is removed, we should also treat the
> original text as *not* dash-escaped.  Otherwise, the contents you will
> see is not what signed in the clearsigned message.  I personally think
> this is not a big problem though.

I don't really understand, the NotDashEscaped header is not used to
compute the signature, is it?

> I was saying that it is straightforward to make use of GnuPG's output
> rather than to decode/reformat dash-escaped text by Gnus itself.

I fail to see the link with the current conversation :-/  This is mainly
due to my poor knowledge in the matter ;-)

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  Perhaps we should start               |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |     making protest releases            |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |   before doing a fall release.         |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |          -- David Kastrup         -  --'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Daiki Ueno]

2007/8/27, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
> > However, if NotDashEscaped is removed, we should also treat the
> > original text as *not* dash-escaped.  Otherwise, the contents you will
> > see is not what signed in the clearsigned message.  I personally think
> > this is not a big problem though.
>
> I don't really understand, the NotDashEscaped header is not used to
> compute the signature, is it?

No, but suppose the following case: the original text contains a line
led by "- " (0x2D 0x20) as it is, and NotDashEscaped is specified by
the sender.   You will see the "- " prefix removed by Gnus.

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Michaël Cadilhac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

"Daiki Ueno" <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:

> 2007/8/27, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
>> > However, if NotDashEscaped is removed, we should also treat the
>> > original text as *not* dash-escaped.  Otherwise, the contents you will
>> > see is not what signed in the clearsigned message.  I personally think
>> > this is not a big problem though.
>>
>> I don't really understand, the NotDashEscaped header is not used to
>> compute the signature, is it?
>
> No, but suppose the following case: the original text contains a line
> led by "- " (0x2D 0x20) as it is, and NotDashEscaped is specified by
> the sender.   You will see the "- " prefix removed by Gnus.

Naaahaaaa! I just completely misinterpreted what `NotDashEscaped' was!
You're utterly right, we should just remove it from the output of GnuPG.

Sorry for the noise :-)

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  ... KVim is cited in the talk.        |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |   "I can't tell if I am more sorry     |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |        for vim or for KDE."            |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |          -- RMS                   -  --'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Daiki Ueno]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

Hi,

>>>>> In <87ps19avog.fsf@cadilhac.name> 
>>>>>	michael@cadilhac.name (Michaël Cadilhac) wrote:
> > No, but suppose the following case: the original text contains a line
> > led by "- " (0x2D 0x20) as it is, and NotDashEscaped is specified by
> > the sender.   You will see the "- " prefix removed by Gnus.

I believe it is fixed now.  This is a test mail.  If you see no
NotDashEscaped and a "- " (0x2D 0x20) prefix on the next line, the test
is successful ;-)
- test

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG167Npbay1LFYE/4RAonhAJ9Dd+L4hS67coVaQ+NZPsLlVqsUsgCgicsb
MfCKBT1+zMLINlBc5sC4eT4=
=btgH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Leo]

On 2007-08-31 07:02 +0100, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>>>>> In <87ps19avog.fsf@cadilhac.name> 
>>>>>>	michael@cadilhac.name (Michaël Cadilhac) wrote:
>> > No, but suppose the following case: the original text contains a line
>> > led by "- " (0x2D 0x20) as it is, and NotDashEscaped is specified by
>> > the sender.   You will see the "- " prefix removed by Gnus.
>
> I believe it is fixed now.  This is a test mail.  If you see no
> NotDashEscaped and a "- " (0x2D 0x20) prefix on the next line, the test
> is successful ;-)
> - test
>
> Regards,

Indeed.

-- 
Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)

         Gnus is one component of the Emacs operating system.

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Michaël Cadilhac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1763 bytes --]

Daiki Ueno <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
>>>>>> In <87ps19avog.fsf@cadilhac.name> 
>>>>>>	michael@cadilhac.name (Michaël Cadilhac) wrote:
>> > No, but suppose the following case: the original text contains a line
>> > led by "- " (0x2D 0x20) as it is, and NotDashEscaped is specified by
>> > the sender.   You will see the "- " prefix removed by Gnus.
>
> I believe it is fixed now.  This is a test mail.  If you see no
> NotDashEscaped and a "- " (0x2D 0x20) prefix on the next line, the test
> is successful ;-)
> - test

The test seems fully successful! However your mail pointed out another
bug ; this is a mail sent in pgpmime, as displayed in Gnus:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[PGP Signed Part:Good signature from 50984398E7C50375 [...]]]
[1. text/plain]
"Daiki Ueno" <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:

> Hi,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a mail sent with an inline PGP signature:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key A5B6B2D4B15813FE [...]]]
[1. text/plain]

Hi,
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the problem isn't that your key seems expired ;-) but that there is
a newline before your text, which AFAIC test, wasn't something you did
on purpose.

So long!

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  <ESC>ape this <COLON> thing,          |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |           <Q>uit and                   |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |    do <NOT> <RET>urn.                  |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |          -- VI                    -  --'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: NotDashEscaped, what?

[Daiki Ueno]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

2007/8/31, Michaël Cadilhac <michael@cadilhac.name>:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key A5B6B2D4B15813FE [...]]]
> [1. text/plain]
>
> Hi,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, the problem isn't that your key seems expired;-) but that there is
> a newline before your text, which AFAIC test, wasn't something you did
> on purpose.

Hmm, actually I didn't insert a newline and I can't reproduce the
problem (I attached the screenshot).

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno

[-- Attachment #2: newline.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 7090 bytes --]