Re: bottom posting
From: David Postill (david_at_postill.org.uk)
Date: 01/07/04
- Next message: K2NNJ: "Re: How secure am I behind a NAT router?"
- Previous message: Ant: "Re: bottom posting"
- In reply to: Ant: "Re: bottom posting"
- Next in thread: Craig A. Finseth: "bottom posting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:42:00 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <btfp5k$4ho$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:58:26 -0000, "Ant"
<not@home.today> wrote:
| "David Postill" <david@postill.org.uk> wrote...
|
| [snip]
| > and are sigs are compliant with the standard.
|
| [snip]
| > - --
|
| Except when their PGP mangles them!
<splorf>
Well spotted. Apparently this problem has been an ongoing discussion
since around y2k. It would appear that some MUAs get it right and some don't.
See the thread starting at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/msg03174.html>
for all of the gory details...
<davidp />
- --
David Postill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
Comment: Get key from pgpkeys.mit.edu:11370
iQA/AwUBP/twI3xp7q1nhFwUEQK4ZQCgu9CwJaaHZO2484zlT73aeOqXQBYAn2TB
PPDDzRHyCsEbXnYHIMEMyA4w
=U8rW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: K2NNJ: "Re: How secure am I behind a NAT router?"
- Previous message: Ant: "Re: bottom posting"
- In reply to: Ant: "Re: bottom posting"
- Next in thread: Craig A. Finseth: "bottom posting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
