From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/26054 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Signature/encryption, what's the standard ? Date: 27 Oct 1999 22:02:08 -0400 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035163334 17394 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:22:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA22657 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAB26355; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:03:00 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:02:58 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22707 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:02:47 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from peorth.gweep.net (ratinox@delphi.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.177]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA22636 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost) by peorth.gweep.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01296; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:02:08 -0400 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: Oscar Figueiredo's message of "27 Oct 1999 14:57:29 +0200" Original-Lines: 48 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070097 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.97) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26054 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26054 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 * Oscar Figueiredo on Wed, 27 Oct 1999 | I would like to know what's the preferred way of signing messages | nowadays: PGP or S/MIME (i.e. RFC 2015 or 2646) ? Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM). PGP and GPG follow PEM closely, though they use different text in the block delimiters. Benefits of the PEM format: * It will work with *ALL* MUAs. * It will work with messages saved as files. * MUAs aware of PEM, like Gnus, will (or can) automatically hide PEM delimiters and encryption/signature blocks. * Mailcrypt plays nicely with Gnus. "Benefits" of using the MIME formats: * Only work with MUAs that grok MIME. /bin/mail won't cut it. * Messages are potentially vulnerable to "whitespace corruption" by MTAs that either add or remove whitespace, causing an otherwise valid message not to pass a signature check. * Signatures of MIME messages saved as files cannot be checked as neither PGP nor GPG grok MIME. * In general, attachments suck. | I'm asking because I just had an argument with a M*crosoft Outlook user | who claimed the body of my messages appear as attachments instead of | inline and I should therefore use S/MIME instead of PGP signatures | because it was the preferred way to sign a message. If his MUA cannot inline text parts, his MUA is broken. Outlook broken? No news there. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0e (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4F66fgl+vIlSVSNkRAptaAJ9qsKjHoHkzmjKOEw+HQuiXxhM7CACfaW77 TXcE73fVryuejlrXyMucnfs= =g4li -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rat \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \