X-Pgp is not rfc2015

X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
> | What is wrong about it (except for it not being supported by PGP
> | itself)?  At least it guarantees you the ability to recover the whole
> | MIME message.
> 
> The purpose of digital signatures is to validate that a message has been
> transmitted without modification.
> 
> Many mail and news systems will append whitespace to messages.  Some strip
> whitespace.  To compensate, following the lead set by the PEM format
> standard, PGP marks signed areas with delimiters.  Thus, if a message has
> whitespace appended or removed, it will not affect the signed area.
> 
> X-Pgp removes those delimiters.

I wasn't talking about X-Pgp, but about Michael Elkins' rfc2015, which 
uses a different mechanism, which also guarantees
trailing-whitespace-proofness, only in a different way.  Also, I'm not 
aware of any RFC condoning X-Pgp (but I might be wrong.)

> X-Pgp is a 'standard'.  It is a *BAD* standard.

It's alarming that the X-Pgp brain-damage can be confused with
rfc2015.

Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
| I wasn't talking about X-Pgp,

I was, and have been since the start of this thread, since validation of
X-Pgp was what the original poster wanted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE3HR78gl+vIlSVSNkRAl7BAKD+bfW5TtBj0pzOmM8pGFcqJQk9YQCgut0H
qDJawPY6v87Dki2mPyqetX8=
=zFqs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ 
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ 

Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
> | I wasn't talking about X-Pgp,
> 
> I was, and have been since the start of this thread,

No.  The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:

Jari> It's not something new...
Jari> 
Jari>         There is already standard by IETF working group in RFC 2015,
Jari>         where the PGP is handled transparently in MIME message.
Jari> 
Jari>             Title:      MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
Jari>             Author:     M. Elkins
Jari>             Date:       October 1996
Jari>             Mailbox:    P.O. Box 92957 - M1/102
Jari>                         Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957
Jari>             Pages:      8
Jari>             Characters: 14,223
Jari>             Updates/Obsoletes:  None
Jari> 
Jari>             URL:        ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2015.txt

rfc2015 is not X-Pgp.

> since validation of X-Pgp was what the original poster wanted.

The original poster (Stefanie Teufel) definitely did not want
validation of X-Pgp -- he wanted to decipher an rfc2015
`multipart/encrypted' message which he even quoted.

(Note that the message Stefanie quoted did contain an `X-Pgp' header,
but it had nothing to do with X-Pgp as advertised by Jari; its MIME
headers clearly marked it as an rfc2015 message.)

Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
| No.  The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:

I was still talking about X-pgp.  Why Jari threw out PGP/MIME at that point
I do not know.  Maybe to confuse things?  I don't know.

| (Note that the message Stefanie quoted did contain an `X-Pgp' header,
| but it had nothing to do with X-Pgp as advertised by Jari; its MIME
| headers clearly marked it as an rfc2015 message.)

Its headers identified it as *BOTH*.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE3HeHEgl+vIlSVSNkRApPwAKCWXTW1u9KieZN1K2QJITM+5hKTmgCdHiNT
FJvYhQisJe+QjFjddJ4LhLA=
=o36f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ head.

Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
> | No.  The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:
> 
> I was still talking about X-pgp.  Why Jari threw out PGP/MIME at
> that point I do not know.  Maybe to confuse things?  I don't know.

Neither do I.  But "submitting things to IETF" certainly sounded like
talking about PGP/MIME to me, unless there is an X-Pgp rfc I know
nothing about.

Anyway, do you agree that a correct MIME implementation /could/
support PGP/MIME (rfc2015) without breaking the operation?

Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>  on Wed, 21 Apr 1999
| Neither do I.  But "submitting things to IETF" certainly sounded like
| talking about PGP/MIME to me, unless there is an X-Pgp rfc I know
| nothing about.

Jari might have submitted it.  I do not know for certain.

Even so, there *are* some really bad RFCs in the 2000-odd list.

| Anyway, do you agree that a correct MIME implementation /could/
| support PGP/MIME (rfc2015) without breaking the operation?

Yes.  Where X-pgp is Stupidly Evil, MIME is just Evil.  RFC 2015 is
actually a well thought out document.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE3HhQJgl+vIlSVSNkRAmBLAKCkXe/iNTLgO9VviL6LA4mNytFBcwCguHN7
BHL2qaRL3sEFC3OHQldhqUY=
=6ZEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ kept under refrigeration.