Stripped PGP sigs? (was Re: cvs help)

[miah]

I agree, the stripper is pointless here.


-miah

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:29:57AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:22:20AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > I have an attachment stripper that I installed on some of the lists. As
> > I was setting up a new list, I added it to a couple of the lists that
> > don't have it already. It also strips html messages. 
> 
> Well, I'd like to offer a suggestion:  Since PGP signatures are about
> the same size as the text which indicates that they have been
> stripped, are about as ugly, but the former actually provide some
> usefulness, whereas the latter does not, maybe it might be worthwhile
> to configure it to leave application/pgp attachments alone?
> 
> To be honest, we see so few attachments on this list, and those we do
> see are generally interesting/useful, I don't see the value in an
> attachment stripper.  Most such attachments are perl or shell scripts
> which do something useful, and I think it's worth NOT stripping those
> (as well as PGP sigs) from the list posts.  But that's just my
> opinion...
> 
> - -- 
> Derek D. Martin
> http://www.pizzashack.org/
> GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE+/FTlHEnASN++rQIRArQGAJ93LV1cu4OC3UiplxnXGyp/81woMwCgh8WX
> Kah4+X3Rov6TB6ju17gHxA0=
> =LQSY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss