From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49378 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: deskpot@myrealbox.com (Vasily Korytov) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: What method do *you* use for signing Usenet posts? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:49:13 +0300 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <878yxgabna.fsf@unix.home> References: <87d6mtf3tq.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <87znpwrjoa.fsf@unix.home> <87el78eqce.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <87hec4g22z.fsf@unix.home> <87k7h0af7g.fsf@eris.void.at> <87bs2cg0va.fsf@unix.home> <87fzroachf.fsf@eris.void.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1043023667 25565 80.91.224.249 (20 Jan 2003 00:47:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18aQ6L-0006eB-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 01:47:45 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18aQ78-00044Q-00; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:48:34 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:49:31 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA22156 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:49:18 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 87011 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2003 00:48:17 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 87006 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2003 00:48:16 -0000 Original-Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@194.190.195.83) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 20 Jan 2003 00:48:16 -0000 Original-Received: from unix.home (h6.217.elnet.msk.ru [194.190.217.6]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h0K0mM8u019380 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:48:22 +0300 Original-Received: (qmail 1562 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2003 00:49:59 -0000 Original-Received: from localhost (alias@127.0.0.1) by localhost with QMTP; 20 Jan 2003 00:49:59 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 1525 invoked by uid 1000); 20 Jan 2003 00:49:15 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: VK Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <87fzroachf.fsf@eris.void.at> (Andreas Fuchs's message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:29:41 +0000 (UTC)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090013 (Oort Gnus v0.13) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, i686-pc-linux) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49378 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49378 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "asf" =3D=3D Andreas Fuchs writes: asf> Today, Vasily Korytov wrote: >> I can prefer having PGP/MIME for one recipient, and old style PGP for >> another.=20 asf> IMHO, there is no way to prefer one over the other: If there are mime asf> parts in the message, it should be signed as a multipart, and if there asf> is no mime part in it, gnus should not put one in, for size and asf> compatibility considerations. Ha. Seems, you simply don't know much about ``compatibility considerations''. Some MUAs only have the support for RFC1991, some -- only for 2015. So there's a good reason to specify it sometimes manually. Next, I prefer PGP/MIME, where it's possible -- because it's a much more cleaner standard. Why can't I do so? Why should I be forced to use RFC1991-style PGP only because you think it's the right choice? =2D--Vas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+K0eLoPg1JPzYGEERAvgVAKDn4kleayzrzAKbadAxZujLTdddjQCeNN06 EW0AFx0CVgZVg4WIJ8yeFJc= =KQ1W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--