> Von: MFPA [mailto:2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-gro...@riseup.net] > > Hi > > On Monday 14 May 2018 at 1:33:03 PM, in > <mid:2ece9d9eef1f524185270138ae23265955b7a...@s0msmail112.arc. > local>, > Fiedler Roman wrote:- > > > This would also prevent many other programming > > errors: e.g. if gpg > > claims to have processed 2 signed messages, a client > > has to verify, > > that it also received two "GOOD_SIG" messages. > > What if a message has more than one signature?
The status line format should be designed to support those variants to allow a "logical consistency check" of the communication with GnuPG like a message digest allows consistency checking for a cryptographic message. I guess it would be ease for the GnuPG-hardcore developers to define, which fields are required to perform a thorough consistency check. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
