PGP/MIME [was Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!]
- From: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj helixcode com>
- To: oly mail com, balsa-list gnome org, Alan O <alan hitter net>
- Cc: Brian Stafford <brian stafford office-logic com>
- Subject: PGP/MIME [was Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!]
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:48:19 -0500
Oh, and another thing...
The reason KMail probably was able to verify the inline pgp signature is
because it is also a UNIX mailer. Were it a DOS/Win32 mailer - it
doubtfully would have worked as Win32 uses the cononical end-of-line
The proper way of doing this would be to crlf-encode the message body
before signing it but since most UNIX mailers don't re-crlf-encode the
message body before piping it to their favorite PGP implementation, this'd
break most other UNIX mailers... *sigh*
You can't win with inline-PGP implementations.
Like I said...a waste of time ;-)
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:03:15 -0500
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Alan O <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: Jeffrey Stedfast <email@example.com>
> CC: Brian Stafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: PGP/MIME [was Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!]
> [comments below]
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Oliver Oberdorf wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:29:29 +0900
> > To: email@example.com
> > From: Oliver Oberdorf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Reply-To: email@example.com
> > Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!
> > With all respect,
> > I don't think balsa will be free of mutt for some time. People have
> > wanted
> > PGP support in balsa for *ages*. Others have repeatedly shot down the
> > idea of using lubmutt's PGP with this argument, but /nobody/ has time
> > do
> > it this way and libmutt seems to still very much a part of balsa. Now
> > that
> > someone is 90% done with the obvious approach, I see no reason to stop
> > him.
> He's still a long way off, he only has signatures working (and
> and only for GnuPG. (btw Werner Koch is working on a library called GpgMe
> which will replace his efforts for GnuPG support).
> > Plus, mutt is time-tested and I see no reason to think a from scratch
> > implementation will work better. More flexible for developers; maybe.
> > Better integrated with gnome PGP; obviously. Ready in 3 months or
> > less; not likely.
> It can be ready easily in 3 months as I've already written a full MIME
> implementation (*with* PGP/MIME support even). All that needs to be done
> to integrate it into Balsa.
> IMHO, PGP/MIME is the correct PGP implementation to use - inline pgp
> are a waste of time...sure it'd be nice to support receiving them but not
> sending them. Receiving them using my library would be a sinch as well
> multipart/encrypted and multipart/signed are the accepted way of doing
> and it works a lot better too.
> The other concern is that there is no standard way of encrypting
> attachments inline (inline in this context means non-PGP/MIME). PGP/MIME
> the only acceptable way of encrypting/signing attachments.
> In the case of signing parts, why sign each attachment? that's a waste -
> it's better to sign the entire email message. And *that* can only be done
> with PGP/MIME.
> Anyways, take a look at my API before you toss this idea aside, I believe
> that once you see the API you'll be convinced it is THE WAY.
> balsa-list mailing list
] [Thread Prev