Re: What method do *you* use for signing Usenet posts?

[Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at>]

Today, Vasily Korytov <deskpot@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>  asf> I wonder - why does the user have to decide such things? Would
>  asf> it not make more sense to just specify the method and let gnus
>  asf> itself figure out whether it should use mime or not (i.e. if
>  asf> there is a mime part, use detached signatures, if not, use plain
>  asf> 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. 

IMHO, there is no way to prefer one over the other: If there are mime
parts in the message, it should be signed as a multipart, and if there
is no mime part in it, gnus should not put one in, for size and
compatibility considerations.

> 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)?

I don't intend to rename a common option, I only suggested that the
<secure> code be made to work as expected - secure a message and ensure
that most receipients (even outlook users, stupid email gateways which
don't grok mime) can read and decode it.

> BTW, the behaviour, you want, can be made through hooks.

Absolutely. But in my opinion, it's a reasonable default, so why not
make it one? (-:

-- 
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs