Re: PGP signatures

* Xandy Johnson ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I can empathize with the frustration of dealing with PGP/MIME messages
> in a mail client that doesn't understand them; that frustration drove
> me to switch mail clients a couple months ago.

This alone makes signing worthwhile.  A common demonstration of how poor
a client is which helps people to switch to something less lame is a
Good Thing ;)

> (For the statistics gatherers, I'm now using Evolution
> <http://www.ximian.com/products/evolution/>, which sends signed or
> encrypted messages using PGP/MIME.)

Statistics gatherers would use User-Agent/X-Mailer :)

<Resists temptation to write a graphing tool showing the activity of
UA's using rrdtool over his 1.2GB of mail>

I was going to do this for my SPAM, actually.. hum, don't suppose
anyone's written a nice Rubyish API to rrdtool?

> However, I believe the response to that frustration (if any) should be
> directed to the email client vendors/authors.  The RFCs relating to
> this are 6 and 7 years old.
[..]
> in my opinion, the individual is doing something reasonable, and
> the vendor is not.  Getting the vendor to change (or changing mail
> clients) is also more reliable.

I agree; we shouldn't be making concessions for UA's which fail to
implement MIME correctly after squillions of revisions and almost a
decade of available development time.

> I'll try to refrain from doing so on this list, but I'll probably
> forget sometimes.

Mutt users can use a folder-hook, ala:

  folder-hook . crypt_autosign=yes
  folder-hook lists/ruby-talk crypt_autosign=no

And of course you can set anything you like with this; so if you run a
patch to use inline PGP signing, you can enable that for ruby-talk too.

Of course, instead of everyone else reconfiguring their mailers, maybe
all those Outlook* users could write a small filtering POP3 proxy and
convert PGP/MIME to inline, or change the Content-Type of
multipart/signed messages to something else Outlook can cope with
properly.

Such a proxy could also escape 'begin  ' with '>begin  ' or so too, to
escape people triggering Outlook's dodgy attachment handling, not to
mention filter out stuff which might be exploitable.. :)

> Who knows; maybe the vendor is already considering it, and a cordial
> suggestion might sway them to raise the priority.

Yup.  Maybe forwarding every signed message that fails to display to
their support team with a "Outlook* does not display this properly" will
encourage them ;)

> I'll endeavor to abide by whatever the community decides, but I'd
> prefer to see the list policy be silent regarding PGP/GPG signatures.
> That is, "Sign your messages or don't, we don't really care as long as
> you're 'talking' about Ruby."

Agreed.  It's not that hard to open an attachment on 1 out of 100
messages (probably only a fraction of which you'll necessarily be
interested in anyway, unless you read the body of *every* message);
Outlook users can concider it their pennence for inflicting broken
threading, truely broken MIME, incorrect charsets, TOFU posting and HTML
email on the rest of us  :)

-- 
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst  -  [e-mail]  -  http://www.aagh.net/
-
If I could drop dead right now, I'd be the happiest man alive!
		-- Samuel Goldwyn