spam-use-pgp-signed?

spam-use-pgp-signed?

[Uwe Brauer]

Hello

While it is posible to set the spam splitting method such that it
detects hashcash, via  spam-use-hashcash, there seems to exist no tool
for pgp-signed-message. Is this correct?

Thanks

Uwe Brauer 

Re: spam-use-pgp-signed?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On  9 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:

> While it is posible to set the spam splitting method such that it
> detects hashcash, via spam-use-hashcash, there seems to exist no tool
> for pgp-signed-message. Is this correct?

Not currently, but if it's a function that can be run on a message
buffer, it will work.  I just need:

a) the function (or just a regexp match)

b) whether it needs just the headers or the whole message
(I'm guessing the whole message, which will make it a bit slow)

I don't use PGP signing myself, so I don't know where to start with
(a), sorry...

Ted

Re: spam-use-pgp-signed?

[Uwe Brauer]

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

   Ted> On  9 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
   >> While it is posible to set the spam splitting method such that it
   >> detects hashcash, via spam-use-hashcash, there seems to exist no tool
   >> for pgp-signed-message. Is this correct?

   Ted> Not currently, but if it's a function that can be run on a message
   Ted> buffer, it will work.  I just need:

   Ted> a) the function (or just a regexp match)

   Ted> b) whether it needs just the headers or the whole message
   Ted> (I'm guessing the whole message, which will make it a bit slow)

   Ted> I don't use PGP signing myself, so I don't know where to start with
   Ted> (a), sorry...

   Ted> Ted
hm,

May be I am wrong, but I think there is a difference between mailcrypt
for pgp and the gnu support for gpg. While the former signs messages
inline the letter uses mime. So may be the following cheap trick might
do
(setq 
 nnimap-split-rule  'nnimap-split-fancy
 nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
 nnimap-split-fancy
  `(|									;macro
   ("Content-Type" "multipart/signed" "SPAM.HAM")))

Uwe 

Re: spam-use-pgp-signed?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On 15 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:

> May be I am wrong, but I think there is a difference between mailcrypt
> for pgp and the gnu support for gpg. While the former signs messages
> inline the letter uses mime. So may be the following cheap trick might
> do
> (setq 
> nnimap-split-rule  'nnimap-split-fancy
> nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
> nnimap-split-fancy
> `(|									;macro
> ("Content-Type" "multipart/signed" "SPAM.HAM")))

Since this is a header, it's a fast check I can do as a spam filter,
if anyone is interested.  Hooking it into the spam.el framework means
that, basically, the last line above will become

(setq spam-use-signed-check t) ;; or something like that

and then you just call (: spam-split) as usual.  If you or anyone else
wants it, I'll add the functionality.  It's pretty simple.

Ted

Re: spam-use-pgp-signed?

[Uwe Brauer]

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

   Ted> On 15 Feb 2006, oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
   >> May be I am wrong, but I think there is a difference between mailcrypt
   >> for pgp and the gnu support for gpg. While the former signs messages
   >> inline the letter uses mime. So may be the following cheap trick might
   >> do
   >> (setq 
   >> nnimap-split-rule  'nnimap-split-fancy
   >> nnimap-split-inbox "INBOX"
   >> nnimap-split-fancy
   >> `(|									;macro
   >> ("Content-Type" "multipart/signed" "SPAM.HAM")))

   Ted> Since this is a header, it's a fast check I can do as a spam filter,
   Ted> if anyone is interested.  Hooking it into the spam.el framework means
   Ted> that, basically, the last line above will become

   Ted> (setq spam-use-signed-check t) ;; or something like that

I think it would be nice. But there is a however. I just tested the
setting with gnus and mozilla-thunderbird,  and  3 smtp server: my
university server, gmail and gmx.net. That is I sent a message to myself which
I signed pgp mime.



    -  My university server does not  not chance the header and the
       above setting would work.

    -  Gmail however produces the following header
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;       s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:t
	o:subject:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender;
	b=UQVmgpAvZMgBNilVC6jL3nU/UK+s/0Q0I4bMqo0fMedsguRm+vGvV1+rAc2djkQSsLsFU/agS
	JwEwzSgQ6gA+Uk8g8aiS9lz6d0r5TbnHNOloUC1gC/ig6Dyj7Juze5pjcmBqU9sVYyRWIgAz+2K
	LkImPJ1DR+sM5GAbWfIYWHo=


    -  Gmx even changed the content-type to
       Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="


So I am not sure what is the best strategy. May be to include all of
these headers?


Uwe