From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49370 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 02:45:29 +0300 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87bs2cg0va.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> 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 1043019838 14493 80.91.224.249 (19 Jan 2003 23:43:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:43:58 +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 18aP6a-0003lc-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:43:56 +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 18aP7U-00035I-00; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:44:52 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:45:49 -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 RAA21924 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:45:36 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 85188 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2003 23:44:35 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 85183 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2003 23:44:35 -0000 Original-Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@194.190.195.83) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2003 23:44:35 -0000 Original-Received: from unix.home (h116.217.elnet.msk.ru [194.190.217.116]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h0JNieqt006295 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 02:44:41 +0300 Original-Received: (qmail 1007 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2003 23:46:17 -0000 Original-Received: from localhost (alias@127.0.0.1) by localhost with QMTP; 19 Jan 2003 23:46:17 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 983 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Jan 2003 23:45:33 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: VK Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <87k7h0af7g.fsf@eris.void.at> (Andreas Fuchs's message of "Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:30:51 +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:49370 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49370 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "asf" =3D=3D Andreas Fuchs writes: asf> Today, Vasily Korytov wrote: >> Surely. But PGG setup has nothing to do with it. Just remove `mime' >> from the tag to sign the message (i.e. <#secure method=3Dpgpmime >> mode=3Dsign>). You can see the result in this message -- I use Oort from >> CVS and gpg.el (PGG should work as well). asf> I wonder - why does the user have to decide such things? Would it not asf> make more sense to just specify the method and let gnus itself figure asf> out whether it should use mime or not (i.e. if there is a mime part, = use asf> detached signatures, if not, use plain pgp)? IMHO, the user _has_ to decide it. For example, I prefer PGP/MIME for mail, but when I use PGP for Usenet (I usually don't, but that's another story), I want RFC1991 PGP. I can prefer having PGP/MIME for one recipient, and old style PGP for another. It may be really useful, so why eliminating this option (why removing options anyway -- it's the Outlook way, we all know, in what it results)? BTW, the behaviour, you want, can be made through hooks. =2D--Vas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+KzidoPg1JPzYGEERAjEJAJ9IG0U66Dr+D103o2oRq4IIH4uMgwCgzIGa sZq0W0dQsoZ5CcIqW648PqY= =6k+v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--