On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 10:29 -0400, David Collantes wrote:
> > so it's your problem. don't use signed/encrypted messaging :)
> > > there is also the isssue of compatibility
> > > between gpg and different versions of ms windows pgp clients.
> >
> > There are RFCs and OpenPGP is a standard, no? Why not complain to the
> > proprietary or incompatible clients?
>
> This is starting to sound like a flame about to spark. Most of the people
> will not verify gpg signatures, most of the people does not use pgp/gpg.
That doesn't excuse badly designed/programmed software that doesn't
behave as it should.
> RFC's are guidelines, not standards. I have not seeing any software out
> there that adheres 100% to the RFC's, there are always relaxed
> interpretations.
HTTP 1.1 is a standard. Right? Wrong?
Right! The standard is RFC 2616 IIRC.
^^^
Of course there are always incomplete or embrace&extended
implementations of the standard.
> I would recommend not to use gpg signed messages on the lists, unless it is
> something of such vital importance that verifying the sender is a must (not
> a should). But that is my opinion.
I would recommend using better software, but that's just my opinion.
Regards, Rui
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
