Mailing List Archive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 05 Jan 2000, Daniel Tepas wrote:

Hi,

> maybe I too stupid to find, but I saw no hint on using gpg in Netscape
> Messenger to do comfortable en-/decryption without CLI interaction. Any
> hints?

No, unfortunaly not. I've been looking for a such tool since a year and
I didn't find anything which could be useful for me.

I recommend to switch to mutt (or pine or elm). With these MUAs you can
easily sign, encrypt and decrypt mail (and they have, in fact, much more
features then Messenger).

Cheers,
Thomas
- --
Thomas Bader <thomasb@trash.net>, Powered by LINUX 2.2
Infos und Tipps zu Linux, HOWTOs des DLHP <http://www.t-bader.ch/>
=> Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD4DBQE4c2zaWSrp90ptuLARAno3AJ0TTuLvP+FEQ+QYyXFPPZ46Vbe57ACUDynQ
4Z/Gr0pbIovbk4sh1nw0qA==
=YR3C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On the subject of signing:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

I'm am highly surprised that even on this list, more than half of all
signed messages are using the deprecated old style signing method.
Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?
XFMail seems to be one of the worst offenders, don't know about pine
and elm.

> I recommend to switch to mutt (or pine or elm). With these MUAs you can
> easily sign, encrypt and decrypt mail (and they have, in fact, much more
> features then Messenger).

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
[...]
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 05 Jan 2000, Lars Hecking wrote:

Hi,

> I'm am highly surprised that even on this list, more than half of all
> signed messages are using the deprecated old style signing method.

I use this old style signing because many people I often send encryptet
mail to use pine or Eudora. Them cannot handle PGP/MIME-signed messages.

> Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?

It think so, but I'm not sure.

> XFMail seems to be one of the worst offenders, don't know about pine
> and elm.

Pine cannot handle PGP/MIME (in fact not in version 4.10).

Cheers,
Thomas
- --
Thomas Bader <thomasb@trash.net>, Powered by LINUX 2.2
Infos und Tipps zu Linux, HOWTOs des DLHP <http://www.t-bader.ch/>
=> Press every key to continue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE4c4DQWSrp90ptuLARApw8AJ471WHBHXkz5joM6eQIAli32ZUK3QCcDx8e
v9KJmic5Ef/KTZIFNGoSxRQ=
=CbCx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Lars Hecking wrote:

> Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?

Better the old style than a wrong implemented rfc2015 ;-)

If we succeed with a GnuPG for NS it will of course implement rfc2015.

I have some hope that you will see something like this before summer
(northern hemispere). I'd prefer to add this to Mozilla but given the
large installed base of NS and the German funding project it makes
some sense to implement it for old NS.


--
Werner Koch at guug.de www.gnupg.org keyid 621CC013

Boycott Amazon! - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 05-Jan-2000 Lars Hecking wrote:
>
>
> I'm am highly surprised that even on this list, more than half of all
> signed messages are using the deprecated old style signing method.
> Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?
> XFMail seems to be one of the worst offenders, don't know about pine
> and elm.
>
OK I use XFMail, but I am not taking it personally.....perhaps its because ithe
deprecated style always works , even if it is old.

I have to use a windows system at work, and until recently used Eudora to screen
any private mail which arrives during the day. I do not know why, but I am
unable to verify or decrypt any Mutt PGP/MIME messages.

Anyone know why?

Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Digital Signatures Verify Author and Unaltered Content

iD8DBQE4c7+QEPpEmWPrp2URApdGAKCMPHx+iealD08WFtx45BSdaQwGEgCeK88K
QJdXyP2yvaQHD4LtU5JWAOA=
=Itm2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Brian Galbraith wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 05-Jan-2000 Lars Hecking wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm am highly surprised that even on this list, more than half of all
> > signed messages are using the deprecated old style signing method.
> > Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?
> > XFMail seems to be one of the worst offenders, don't know about pine
> > and elm.
> >
> OK I use XFMail, but I am not taking it personally.....perhaps its because ithe
> deprecated style always works , even if it is old.
>
> I have to use a windows system at work, and until recently used Eudora to screen
> any private mail which arrives during the day. I do not know why, but I am
> unable to verify or decrypt any Mutt PGP/MIME messages.
>
> Anyone know why?

PGP/MIME is a weird animal. The message is signed with some of the mime
headers, I guess to insure that noone changes the file type from msword to
excel or something. If your mail program saves the parts, it is very
difficult to put them back into a message for which the signature is sure
to be correct.

-walter

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Walter Truitt wrote:

> PGP/MIME is a weird animal. The message is signed with some of the mime
> headers, I guess to insure that noone changes the file type from msword to

One advantage of this is, that it enables you to sign an entire MIME
message with any content and arbitrary mime parts. It is also
possible to sign only parts of a MIME message.

--
Werner Koch at guug.de www.gnupg.org keyid 621CC013

Boycott Amazon! - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with PGP4Pine

iEYEARECAAYFAjh0lLcACgkQs/NR4JuTKG/wmACgrxnR7jY1GaA5f07ssy3oESs+
nPMAn06D5O83tK0PS5yYzptwnfuSJ+Mk
=koKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, Werner Koch wrote:

> One advantage of this is, that it enables you to sign an entire MIME
> message with any content and arbitrary mime parts. It is also
> possible to sign only parts of a MIME message.

One disadvantage of this is that mailing list software may decide to
convert quoted printables to 8bit and thus invalidate the signature.
Like the one running this list did with a recent message
(<19991204161604.A2317@frodo.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>) of mine!

Walter

> One disadvantage of this is that mailing list software may decide to
> convert quoted printables to 8bit and thus invalidate the signature.
> Like the one running this list did with a recent message
> (<19991204161604.A2317@frodo.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>) of mine!

I stumbled across this just yesterday when I converted all old-style
signed mails on this list to pgp/mime. The significant difference
between this mail of yours (as received by list members) and other
signed mails is that your message was multipart/mixed, and maybe
the list software has problems with that. Or there was some broken
MTA in the path.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Walter Hofmann wrote:

> One disadvantage of this is that mailing list software may decide to
> convert quoted printables to 8bit and thus invalidate the signature.
> Like the one running this list did with a recent message
> (<19991204161604.A2317@frodo.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>) of mine!
>
> Walter

A little odd seeing my name on someone else's message. :) There are not
many Walters here.

My preference would have definately been to have a signature sign a part
before it is attached to an email. In this format, mail programs that
save parts automatically (like what someone mentioned of eudora), the part
can still be verified. It would still have been possible to sign a
multipart/mixed. I am guessing there is a way to write a multipart mixed
to a file here. It is definately not something that is usually done. I
guess that doesn't make much sense. Signing multipart would be about
equivalent to the current for signing the whole message. And for programs
that automatically save attachments, it would not be possible to put
together the multipart to check a signature.

Basically I would like to sign a simple message (text only) by attaching a
signature that would work when checking only the text body (no mime
header). Similar signatures could be made for each part. The signature
should be against the format of the part when saved rather than the format
in the message. I would at least guess that the CRLF would be used when
generating a signature for text parts anyways.

I suppose I could just start making my signatures in this way. People
would not likely understand what to do with a signature, but most people I
write don't use pgp or gpg anyways.

Sorry this is probably not the correct place to discuss this, but I am
unsure where is, and the topic came up on this list.

-walter

> > Is mutt the only MUA to get that right? PGP/MIME, anyone?
>
> It think so, but I'm not sure.

There's also Gnus, and that's all I think.

Anyway, latest version of elm ME+ supports GPG (but only the old way).

Alex
--
* | Janusz A. "Alex" Urbanowicz, \ Home: <alex@bofh.torun.pl>
--+~| | http://eris.phys.uni.torun.pl/~alex/ \ Work: <alex@bofh.net.pl>
`_|/ | \____ RSA: 512/0xAB425659
| | "I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

alex@bofh.torun.pl (Janusz A. Urbanowicz) writes:

> There's also Gnus, and that's all I think.

Gnus (with mailcrypt) can only handle in-line signatures. It cannot
either create or read separate PGP/Mime signatures.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE4dvRyEhN/ETQwnEERApO7AKCktIhwPBOWsdDlAl+AR7hMz+45nACgvJVE
Mc5J9poWQlBZxPakcv0y+ro=
=2UDi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Graham Murray wrote:

> Gnus (with mailcrypt) can only handle in-line signatures. It cannot
> either create or read separate PGP/Mime signatures.

Someone should fix this.

--
Werner Koch at guug.de www.gnupg.org keyid 621CC013

Boycott Amazon! - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html

Werner Koch writes:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Graham Murray wrote:
>
> > Gnus (with mailcrypt) can only handle in-line signatures. It cannot
> > either create or read separate PGP/Mime signatures.
>
> Someone should fix this.

bugs@gnus.org aka Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen