1997-06-24 - Re: New PGP signatures (fwd)

Header Data

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 1e5de8bcfa6f09eff20fddd60855916777324db35dc857b6dac2a8c797589ce8
Message ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970624020657.16641D-100000@sirius.infonex.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-24 09:20:51 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:20:51 +0800

Raw message

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:20:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: New PGP signatures (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970624020657.16641D-100000@sirius.infonex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

> You really need to modify your mail-processing code as you are going to
> see more and more of these. You should also start work on implementing the
> PGP/MIME RFC as you will be seeing more of these messages.

It's kind of hard to modify the code when I'm still waiting for the PGP
5.0 code to be made available. I can't do a lot until people finish
OCR-ing it. 
> Nothing personal but your code should not "break" on any data that is sent
> to it. PGP 2.6.x doen't have a problem with these signatures it just
> returns a error code and goes on it's way.

Precisely; it returns an error and drops out. It *does not* output the
signed message to stdout as it would do if it were an RSA-signed message,
so it just looks like an empty message. At the moment I have better things
to do, but I guess if people are going to use non-standard message formats
they don't want us to read what they write anyway.