On Sat, Nov 22, 1997 at 02:56:28PM +0000, Ian Brown wrote:
As Dave said, I think this argument is just going round in circles now.
We seem to have clarified at least some points. I believe none of the
following is contentious:
1. We should not MUST MIME *or* Armour. Both increase the amount of code
needed for a minimal implementation, which none of us want. As Dave
said, linearly increased code increases exponentially the potential for
errors.
2. We are not trying to eliminate Armour. It is entirely appropriate
that it should be in there as an option to provide backward
compatibility, if implementors so wish.
3. Both systems are for converting fully secure binary PGP data into a
form which can be safely stored in/sent across 7-bit systems. Mail is
such a system. Armour/MIME does nothing for security. As Dave and Jon
have both said, OP is NOT a mail standard. It is a security standard.
7-bit conversion should therefore not be a MUST. As Lindsay Mathieson
said, we can safely assume most file systems can cope with 8-bit data.
All sounds good to me...
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent(_at_)songbird(_dot_)com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html