Re: gpg broken in balsa 2.0.10?

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

On 03/31/2003, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> Am 31.03.03 11:50 schrieb(en) Albrecht Dreß:
>>> The only prob are sigs created by sylpheed 0.8.0 as they are not 
>>> recognised as such.
>> 
>> Hmmm, I tried sylpheed 0.8.10, and that works. So I guess it's a 
>> problem with sylpheed?
> 
> [O.k., talking to myself isn't very intelligent. Maybe I should think 
> before I type...]
> 
> The problem is caused by the missing "micalg" parameter in sylpheeds 
> message header. According to RFC 3156, Section 5, this parameter must 
> be present, so balsa does not recognise this message as signed. We 
> might decide to remove the check for it as it is not used when 
> processing the message, though. Opinions?

Keep the check! If Balsa starts accepting broken signatures, there's 
less pressure on other MUAs to stick to the RFC.

You *could* be really aggressive, and pop up an error dialog that says 
something like: `Broken signature! The sender's mailer does not conform 
to RFCxxxx! Stamp out nonconforming behavior!'

Or you could be less strident (does the world need more people telling 
others how to live their lives?), and just continue to silently reject 
it...