>> - illegally use Old PGP within an attachment, as we do, which makes >> the signature verifiable outside of the mailer, but not within it; >> >> - obey the rules and use PGP/MIME, which will make it impossible to >> verify the signature after the attachment is saved to disk.
> If the content of the attachment should be signed, then why not do
> the following:
>
> 1. use GPG to sign the patch
> 2. attach the signed patch to an email
> 3. send it
> 4. save the attachment, which is a signed patch
> 5. check or discard the signature
This is exactly what we're doing -- first possibility above, PGP ASCII
armour within an attachment. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with the
mailers available to me:
1. Mutt completely a signature embedded in an attachment;
2. Gnus attempts to verify such signatures, but it doesn't de-QP a
signature embedded in an attachment, and hence fails the check;
3. When saving the attachment, Gnus discards the signature (it
implements Old PGP by simulating a multipart/signed with a text/plain
within it). Saving the attachment in Mutt works.
4. The signature cannot be checked by piping the e-mail through GnuPG.
(1) and (4) imply that Mutt users cannot easily check a signature from
within Mutt. (2), (3) and (4) imply that Gnus users (both of them)
cannot check a signature without using a different mailer.
(While the format we're discussing is definitely nonstandard, (2) is
arguably a bug in Gnus. Gnus' PGP support is not quite up to scratch,
but it's getting better with time.)
I'm curious in hearing results from people using other mailers.
> This would not combine GPG and email in any way; signing the patch
> would be an independent step outside however the patch is
> transferred. In principle, one could replace 2..4 with uploading to
> a web page, storing on an ftp server, or transmitting over an
> untrusted ssh link (whatever that would be).
Yes, I agree. Which is why I suggested doing nothing about the problem.
> It may be advantageous if darcs, by itself, knew how to strip off and
> ignore a signature, if it runs on a system where gpg is not available
> to do that.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I believe Darcs
already does that. Anything that comes before or after the bundle
itself, be it a bundle comment or a PGP signature, is ignored.
> My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support
> encrypting and signing email messages.
Well, I don't, but I'll sign this mail for the once.
Juliusz
pgpr0sTvpzS1N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
