Re: gpg broken in balsa 2.0.10?

[Simon Brown <simon cliffestones demon co uk>]

On 2003.03.31 12:54, Peter Bloomfield wrote:
> 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...

I wouldn't recomend silently rejecting it, people may then think it's a balsa 
problem. I would at least add it as a warning message that the user can choose 
whether or not to see.

Simon
-- 
"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse!  This gun is so futuristic that even *I* 
don't know how it works!"