-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 18 April 2002 16:46, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
<snip>
I don't see the how having UTF-8 inside _ASCII_ Armor can be justified.
The problem is that the ascii armor is going to be used in non-8but-clean
environments. Else, you'd use the binary format, no?
One one side, we can consider cleartext signatures, which already can
contain characters with the MSB set, and which are not necessarily
armored for 8-bit cleanliness. Even there, the signature block is (among
other things) ASCII-armored to not confuse the user (or his terminal)
with weird chars.
Yes, but the problem is not clearsigning. The problem is armoured encryption
and armoured keyrings. There also exist binary versions. Why do you think
exist armoured ones? If the armoured format wasn't restricted to US-ASCII,
then what right has the armoured format to exist anymore?
There are multiple reasons for armoring non-7bit data:
a) The transport does not allow arbitrary 8bit sequences
<snip>
SMTP falls into this category. That's what I'm mainly concerned with and
that's where we ran into problems a few months ago. The PGP/MIME rfc3156
defines all app/pgp-* mimetypes to be 7bit only. Allowing 8bit octets in
ascii armour would break rfc3156 (and rfc1847, too, IIRC) for no apparent
added value.
Marc
- --
Marc Mutz <mutz(_at_)kde(_dot_)org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8vwK63oWD+L2/6DgRAqXlAKC5cLDJVbFYNjXQbZrirk8R6PCpXACg2zn4
njSeHYzN+c4Nlm0o2dpxKbY=
=Pcej
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----