From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:21:16 +0800
To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: Lack of PGP signatures
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960703230954.124G-100000@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960704140318.262A-100000@gak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, snow wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:
> > I am wondering why there is not a signing option that ignores all
> > non-printing characters.  Might fix some of these problems...  (Can anyone
> > think of a reason this would be a "Bad Thing(tm)"?)
> 
>      IANACE, but off the top of my head I'd say clear signing binaries. 

It is not possible to clear-sign binaries with PGP.  The point of clear-signing
is to have signed text that is readable to people who don't have the software
necessary to process the text.  It would make sense to clearsign a file that
is base64'ed or uuencoded, which wouldn't alter the contents of the file.  I
can't see how such an option would be harmful, except that it might lose some
characters that are important to the context of the message.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMdwIoLZc+sv5siulAQHVegQAqeyjQY9SmQ4mM1/ezBDeI9MLa3EZ8620
JXrbxYCt74zUFzqC8GxylUE9cowdZmDrQ2NbYepWbekoY/cmSE3lxJPd1VW36Lbo
NY3c1iNswvUiAsfXPUA+tBide/aZCk/vniHXFwLBPJi+gRTjktpbIUNixoxW3B5z
xJSFusVl8Lg=
=QUGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----