From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/66082 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Daiki Ueno" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: PGG: "NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message" Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:07 +0900 Message-ID: <54a15d860801080142l70b95d7dkac4bf51a86196011@mail.gmail.com> References: <54a15d860801060423k4b75fad8g69df9b1f1c52ed1d@mail.gmail.com> <54a15d860801061922w570ad842reecb53a090c0ce28@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199785387 5389 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2008 09:43:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:43:07 +0000 (UTC) To: "Reiner Steib" , ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14575@lists.math.uh.edu Tue Jan 08 10:43:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JCAzU-0007ka-8P for ding-account@gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:43:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JCAyL-0005HC-Mf; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:42:13 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JCAyJ-0005Gx-Tc for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:42:11 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JCAyI-0002gz-Ft for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:42:11 -0600 Original-Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1JCAyI-0003aG-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:42:10 +0100 Original-Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so16577912pye.12 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:42:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=q7u6MCHimJoQwweihCFxuBUpkC05f5xAHJiVuadOLEM=; b=Z34v5lPpg1g+PLgcm3zKxH4sx5tzhyT8Vgu4rhAdNVOXSvnxgdAXNDkWb/q6Io6D7uJkAY/AnDIYC+hGrFFQqB8TkvRCqov5VA9UTOE5A6andhS01Nr15uP16LpZ75zb/aqkq6DwRQ1pmSqqUU5xnLypiGhiRIsbVc9R3Dky2R8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=YaXAJ2UxM8uVKLXNpeHyQo+71YXHV+UD+EOPujzbYo2ZTuStvDxpb5ro0/t8xw8wl4n/tjcPMSrN1T5oNUE1NFx8YqUBK23zNRRtmXgqUdUoq8qje0Qu6DR6z7WP2fusKCi75374dns6zs+Lf/xOJxxCX21adkwoaXbEutkpyTw= Original-Received: by 10.142.142.16 with SMTP id p16mr518757wfd.119.1199785327464; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:42:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.142.237.3 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 01:42:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 58105027df1dcd4d X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:66082 Archived-At: 2008/1/8, Reiner Steib : > > I think that my ChangeLog entry is not clear. > > Could you please install the improved text? I thought again, and concluded that the one I previously posted is too descriptive. > Is this (very naive) patch correct? > > + (when (looking-at "NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message$") > + (forward-line)) Not exactly. You should disable unescaping dashes in this case. Please read http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/65087/focus=65109 > I'm not familiar with the mml2015.el code at all. After some my very > limited code read and test, I conclude that > `mml2015-extract-cleartext-signature' is only used to massage the > displayed text of the article buffer. Verification > (e.g. `mml2015-pgg-clear-verify') is done using the original > ("un-massaged" text). Is that correct? Yes, but if the displayed text is different from the verified text, what the purpose of digital signatures. > Could you please add a doc string to this function? I still believe that the right way is to use the plaintext output from GnuPG as it is, and mml2015-extract-cleartext-signature is just a kludge for misdesigned libraries like PGG, which have no ability to do that. So, I think it should not have descriptive documentation. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno