Re: gpg broken in balsa 2.0.10?

Am 2003.03.31 13:54 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
> 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...

No, I just looked a bit around and found that there were many bugfixes in 
the gpg-support of the last sylpheed releases.
So I would propose to process it with a warning in the hope this warnign 
will never be shown 'cause everybody but me has updated sylpheed ;-)


  \ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign    | "The opposite of a profound truth
   X  * NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   |     is a profound truth, too."
  / \ * NO MSWord docs in e-mail|            -- Nils Bohr

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]