X-Pgp is not rfc2015

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

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.