[linux-elitists] Fwd: PGP signature attachments!
Fri Sep 7 14:28:05 PDT 2001
begin Karsten M Self quotation:
> on Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 08:45:58PM +0100, Sean Neakums (email@example.com) wrote:
>> begin Karsten M Self quotation:
>> > on Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 08:30:04PM +0100, Sean Neakums (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> >> There is plenty in there that states why *you* think you should
>> >> be allowed to sign with PGP/MIME but there is nothing to say why
>> >> other people should do likewise.
>> > They can choose to sign or not sign as they please. I address
>> > why *I* do this, and why it behooves the reader to have RFC
>> > 2015-enabled mail.
>> But I *do* have RFC2015 support in my MUA; I just choose not to use
>> RFC2015 to encode signed mail that I send.
> My rant isn't aimed at convincing people to *sign* their messages,
> it's to convince them to get a mailer that *supports* RFC 2015
> signed messages:
As I said:
> There is plenty in there that states why *you* think you should be
> allowed to sign with PGP/MIME but there is nothing to say why other
> people should do likewise.
Does this or does this not indicate that I grasped the thrust of your
continue Karsten M Self quotation:
>> And could you please stop spewing the same canned crap at me again
>> and again? Thank you.
> If you'd indicate that you'd read and understood the essay, I might
> not feel inclined to include relevant portions highlighting your
> inaccurate statements of its contents. It's called reading *with*
Please point out where I claimed that people should not have MUAs that
understand RFC2015. Please point out where I said that your rant
addresses what people should send and not what they should accept.
Given the content of your rant, it would only be evidence of my
failure to comprehend if HAD said it had changed my mind and that I
would now sign all mail with PGP/MIME.
This thread began with my assertion that people should sign in plain
text, not with PGP/MIME. At no point did I address what people should
be prepared to accept in incoming messages. I tend to stick to the
time-honoured dictum in this regard, which is reflected in my choice
You then replied that you would sign in plaintext only when necessary,
reposting some of your rant, addressing a point I had not raised,
namely that people should run MUAs that accept and correctly process
your PGP/MIME messages. I told you that I had read your rant and that
it had not affected my determination to sign messages in plain text.
You then asked me to explain why not, which I explained.
I have not misunderstood your rant: you are the one who quoted a text
that addresses an assertion I simply did not make.
"The man who laughs at standards--that man must be put down.
We are none of us perfect; I know that. But we must agree
on what perfection is."
-- Joe Gendreau, California Weights and Measures
More information about the linux-elitists