* X-Pgp is not rfc2015
@ 1999-04-21 0:04 Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 0:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hrvoje Niksic @ 1999-04-21 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015
1999-04-21 0:04 X-Pgp is not rfc2015 Hrvoje Niksic
@ 1999-04-21 0:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-04-21 1:47 ` Hrvoje Niksic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 1999-04-21 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
| I wasn't talking about X-Pgp,
I was, and have been since the start of this thread, since validation of
X-Pgp was what the original poster wanted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE3HR78gl+vIlSVSNkRAl7BAKD+bfW5TtBj0pzOmM8pGFcqJQk9YQCgut0H
qDJawPY6v87Dki2mPyqetX8=
=zFqs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015
1999-04-21 0:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat
@ 1999-04-21 1:47 ` Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 14:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hrvoje Niksic @ 1999-04-21 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
> * Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
> | I wasn't talking about X-Pgp,
>
> I was, and have been since the start of this thread,
No. The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:
Jari> It's not something new...
Jari>
Jari> There is already standard by IETF working group in RFC 2015,
Jari> where the PGP is handled transparently in MIME message.
Jari>
Jari> Title: MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
Jari> Author: M. Elkins
Jari> Date: October 1996
Jari> Mailbox: P.O. Box 92957 - M1/102
Jari> Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957
Jari> Pages: 8
Jari> Characters: 14,223
Jari> Updates/Obsoletes: None
Jari>
Jari> URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2015.txt
rfc2015 is not X-Pgp.
> since validation of X-Pgp was what the original poster wanted.
The original poster (Stefanie Teufel) definitely did not want
validation of X-Pgp -- he wanted to decipher an rfc2015
`multipart/encrypted' message which he even quoted.
(Note that the message Stefanie quoted did contain an `X-Pgp' header,
but it had nothing to do with X-Pgp as advertised by Jari; its MIME
headers clearly marked it as an rfc2015 message.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015
1999-04-21 1:47 ` Hrvoje Niksic
@ 1999-04-21 14:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-04-21 17:53 ` Hrvoje Niksic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 1999-04-21 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
| No. The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:
I was still talking about X-pgp. Why Jari threw out PGP/MIME at that point
I do not know. Maybe to confuse things? I don't know.
| (Note that the message Stefanie quoted did contain an `X-Pgp' header,
| but it had nothing to do with X-Pgp as advertised by Jari; its MIME
| headers clearly marked it as an rfc2015 message.)
Its headers identified it as *BOTH*.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE3HeHEgl+vIlSVSNkRApPwAKCWXTW1u9KieZN1K2QJITM+5hKTmgCdHiNT
FJvYhQisJe+QjFjddJ4LhLA=
=o36f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015
1999-04-21 14:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat
@ 1999-04-21 17:53 ` Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 18:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hrvoje Niksic @ 1999-04-21 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:
> * Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> on Tue, 20 Apr 1999
> | No. The message I answered to was your answer to Jari, who said:
>
> I was still talking about X-pgp. Why Jari threw out PGP/MIME at
> that point I do not know. Maybe to confuse things? I don't know.
Neither do I. But "submitting things to IETF" certainly sounded like
talking about PGP/MIME to me, unless there is an X-Pgp rfc I know
nothing about.
Anyway, do you agree that a correct MIME implementation /could/
support PGP/MIME (rfc2015) without breaking the operation?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: X-Pgp is not rfc2015
1999-04-21 17:53 ` Hrvoje Niksic
@ 1999-04-21 18:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 1999-04-21 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> on Wed, 21 Apr 1999
| Neither do I. But "submitting things to IETF" certainly sounded like
| talking about PGP/MIME to me, unless there is an X-Pgp rfc I know
| nothing about.
Jari might have submitted it. I do not know for certain.
Even so, there *are* some really bad RFCs in the 2000-odd list.
| Anyway, do you agree that a correct MIME implementation /could/
| support PGP/MIME (rfc2015) without breaking the operation?
Yes. Where X-pgp is Stupidly Evil, MIME is just Evil. RFC 2015 is
actually a well thought out document.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE3HhQJgl+vIlSVSNkRAmBLAKCkXe/iNTLgO9VviL6LA4mNytFBcwCguHN7
BHL2qaRL3sEFC3OHQldhqUY=
=6ZEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-04-21 18:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-04-21 0:04 X-Pgp is not rfc2015 Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 0:42 ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-04-21 1:47 ` Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 14:33 ` Stainless Steel Rat
1999-04-21 17:53 ` Hrvoje Niksic
1999-04-21 18:08 ` Stainless Steel Rat
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).