If everyone would just be using binary signatures, the problem
wouldn't occur, right. Bad enough, most current implementations
seem to rely on text-mode signatures.
Also, using the new text-mode signatures with the restrictions in
the draft actually has the nice side-effect of moving PGP/MIME
closer to one of the features found throughout MIME: Resistance
against tampering with trailing whitespace. It's not really helpful
if changes which don't affect the message's contents are detected by
PGP/MIME.
(But, of course, if most people here feel that binary mode should be
used, we could still change the text.)
On 2001-01-22 14:33:12 +0900, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:33:12 +0900 (JST)
To: roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-openpgp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, ianbell(_at_)turnpike(_dot_)com,
me(_at_)mutt(_dot_)org,
ddt(_at_)cryptorights(_dot_)org, raph(_at_)acm(_dot_)org,
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: Finalizing OpenPGP/MIME?
From: Kazu Yamamoto (???????????) <kazu(_at_)iijlab(_dot_)net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.95b99 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 (AOI)
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org>
Subject: Finalizing OpenPGP/MIME?
There haven't been any substantial changes for a long time, and the
only thing we still have to resolve in a decent way is that ugly
incompatibility with respect to canonical text signatures which
hurts us badly, since it does - among other things - ruin
one-pass-abilities for OpenPGP/MIME. I don't think there is any
real solution to this problem (or does anyone here have a time
machine at hand?).
Let me confirm. Can this problem be solved if we use the binary
signature?
--Kazu
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org>