Thomas Roessler <roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org> writes:
So what change do you suggest? Should I replace the extension in 9.2
by ".sig", or list ".asc" and ".sig"? (I also note that PGP 2.6 and
PGP 5.0i generate ".asc" for ASCII-armored detached signatures on my
Linux machine; gnupg generates ".sig".)
And what file type and extension am I supposed to put in there for
ascii-armored public keys? ".asc" and "TEXT"? ".pkr" and "pgPR"? None
of these seem to make terribly much sense to me.
Or should I just drop extensions and Mac file types?
I would do so for the detached signature. I don't think there is
enough time to check all the interoperability issues.
For the public key ring file, I would rather drop the requirement that
the content is 7bit ASCII-armored and mention that the extensions
.pkr, .pgp, .pkr and .asc are common.
--
Florian Weimer
Florian(_dot_)Weimer(_at_)RUS(_dot_)Uni-Stuttgart(_dot_)DE
University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898