From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49369 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josh Huber Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: What method do *you* use for signing Usenet posts? Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:43:41 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87r8b83dua.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> References: <87d6mtf3tq.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <87znpwrjoa.fsf@unix.home> <87el78eqce.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <87hec4g22z.fsf@unix.home> <87k7h0af7g.fsf@eris.void.at> Reply-To: Josh Huber NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1043019790 14340 80.91.224.249 (19 Jan 2003 23:43:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:43:10 +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 18aP5o-0003j7-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:43:08 +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 18aP6d-0002yR-00; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:43:59 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:44:56 -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 RAA21900 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:44:43 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 85151 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2003 23:43:43 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 85146 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2003 23:43:42 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (80.91.224.244) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2003 23:43:42 -0000 Original-Received: from news by quimby.gnus.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18aPFX-00065J-00 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:53:11 +0100 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-Lines: 29 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: paradoxical.net Original-X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 1043020391 7744 66.92.73.76 (19 Jan 2003 23:53:11 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jan 2003 23:53:11 GMT Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) XEmacs/21.4 (Military Intelligence, i686-pc-linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:vG0vtrxOfdtuk+t0V3KiGX/B38k= Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49369 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49369 Andreas Fuchs writes: > I wonder - why does the user have to decide such things? Would it > not make more sense to just specify the method and let gnus itself > figure out whether it should use mime or not (i.e. if there is a > mime part, use detached signatures, if not, use plain pgp)? I really like this idea. Way back in the day (okay, only about a year ago, I think... :), I put in some logic which scans though the message and decides whether or not to automatically insert a multipart signed tag, or a part signed tag. Prior to that, if you selected "sign" or "encrypt" it would only get the first part in the case of a multi-part message. This could be quite bad, and almost certainly was not what the user was expecting to happen. We could have some other tag, such as "pgpauto", which selected plain PGP when there were no other attachments, but used pgp/mime if there were. The problem which arises from this (IMHO) is one of keybindings. What do we use? I already don't like the fact that there are separate keybindings for pgp and pgp/mime -- personally, I think there should be one keyboard interface for signing/encrypting, and there should be another variable which selects what style those commands use. -- Josh Huber