> Theo de Raadt: > > I've pointed out that people identify the purpose of the file in > various ways. > > You wish to basically throw that out? > > All I say is that file(1) is unreliable by design.
You didn't continue reading. And you persist in not going back. > > Well I don't see any need to introduce incompatible variations. > > Yeap, there is a problem with verifying uncommented signatures on > current signify(1). I don't care. And it's okay if someone does - I've > just put my two cents. they don't need to be verified. They are informational.
