NotDashEscaped, what?

[michael@cadilhac.name (Michaël Cadilhac)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1660 bytes --]

Hi !

I see more and more « NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this
message » in the shown text of mails.  I think it may be a little bug.

The messages read as follow :

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

* Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

  > So I really fail to see the value of those macros.

If nothing else, they're an alternative.  I do agree that #'featurep is
a better way to go, but these macros are an alternative nonetheless.

=2D-=20
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|       SXEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need.       |
|         Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good!          |
|------------------------------------<steve@sxemacs.org>---|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: The SXEmacs Project <http://www.sxemacs.org>
Comment: Eicq - The SXEmacs ICQ Client <http://www.eicq.org/>

iEYEARECAAYFAkbRk6IACgkQHSfbS6lLMAP3GgCfbY0DELQbMdrovgwOILPlvdI1
Px0An2BhANnKnsW4N5q86ve4I+ALnAqn
=3D0wSP
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Maybe we should discard in Gnus such a sub-header, I think what's here
<http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/gnupg/rfc2440-7.html> means that it could be
discarded safely.

Any strong or weak opinion?

-- 
 |   Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac       |  Would someone please DTRT with this,  |
 |   http://michael.cadilhac.name   |        then ACK?                       |
 |   JID/MSN:                       |          -- Richard Stallman           |
 `----  michael.cadilhac@gmail.com  |                                   -  --'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]