On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:58:43AM -0700,
sinck@ugive.com wrote:
>
>
> \_ I'm sending this email PGP/MIME signed, as opposed to standard PGP
> \_ signing. If this disagrees with anyone's mailer, or if it doesn't
> \_ work right with your PGP setup, please contact me off-list. Just
> \_ trying to figure out whether I should go with PGP/MIME or standard PGP
> \_ encoding.
> [...]
> \_ > For the love of God, please use standard PGP encoding.
> \_ >
> \_ > MIME encoding is a pain in the ass for us Outlook / Outlook Express
> \_ > users.
> \_
> \_ Fair enough. If PGP/MIME causes some clients to choke, I'll use standard.
>
> This was funny to me....
>
I'm glad it gave you a laugh.
> 1) Sending a signed message, but not including a reference to your
> public key....
A) It doesn't matter if I included a reference or not. I just wanted
to see if people's mailers recognized my message as PGP signed. Even
if PGP came back with "public key not found," it still shows that the
message was recognized correctly.
B) My public key can be found on just about any keyserver out there,
and my key ID is in my .signature.
> 2) "standard". I've really got to track down (Twain?) who said "The
> best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
> from."
There is a standard way of encoding PGP-signed mails. Ever seen
"-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----"?
>
> David
- --
Nathan Saper
natedog@well.com (PGP OK)
Fingerprint (0x9AD0F382): 743D FE2C 7F2E 7CAE 4A5F 0B19 D855 B205 9AD0 F382
Fidonet: 1:114/59.10
(text/plain)