-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This sure sounds like sophistry to me.
It wasn't intended as such. The terms in the excerpt strongly
suggested display-oriented formatting to me. It is certainly
not necessary to display the PGP clearsigned text specially in
order to express the appearance that the sender intended.
And as it happens I'm the one who wrote this text. I can assure you that the
intent was to ban the use of text/plain for formatted materials.
Thanks. I apologize for my misinterpretation.
I really shouldn't have commented on the MIME specification at all.
It's not my specialty, as you have made clear. But more importantly,
I don't think it's really the point.
I don't think that Thomas is trying to claim that this is either ideal
or strictly legal. He appears to be documenting an actual
implementation of an extra-legal extension to solve a practical
problem in the hopes that others would adopt the same solution. The
problem involves both non-MIME agents and MIME agents that handle
PGP/MIME badly, so it's no surprise that a purely MIME-compliant
solution may not be possible.
If I have misrepresented Thomas's intentions, perhaps he'll clarify.
I never suggested any such thing. What I suggest was a different
subtype of text.
My apologies. Rereading your original note alone, that still isn't
clear to me, but that's my fault.
Perhaps others can comment on whether their user agents react
to text/something-else better than proper PGP/MIME.
Separately, "Greg Troxel" <gdt(_at_)ir(_dot_)bbn(_dot_)com> writes:
I suppose it all comes down to one's opinion on whether it is
reasonable to send PGP with a non-MIME-aware MUA.
I think it's a more a matter of wanting to send PGP-encoded
material to *receivers* that don't understand MIME or PGP/MIME,
and wanting the best possible display given their limitations,
all the while allowing PGP-aware agents to use the extra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----