On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:36:38PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
This smells like a discrepancy between RFC 2440 and the classical
PGP implementation has crept in, and gone unnoticed for quite some
time.
Sometimes I have the impression that most of my comments on the
OpenPGP drafts fall in the "gone unnoticed" category (I first pointed
it out on September 16th, 1998, again on October 13th -- RFC 2440 was
published in November --, once more on February 10th, 1999, and again
on December 23rd after a cryptic note on the subject appeared in
2440bis-00); but we actually have the following text in the latest
draft:
* PGP 2.6.X and 5.0 do not trim trailing whitespace from a
"canonical text" signature. They only remove it from cleartext
signatures. These signatures are not OpenPGP compliant --
OpenPGP requires trimming the whitespace. If you wish to
interoperate with PGP 2.6.X or PGP 5, you may wish to accept
these non-compliant signatures.