httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From imacat <ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Content Negotiation with <DirectoryMatch> in Apache 2.0.43
Date Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:56:52 GMT
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 01:50:28 -0000
"Chris Taylor" <chris@x-bb.org> wrote:
> I use PGP signed mail, and Outlook Express. :)

    Of course.  You use PGP, without S/MIME.  You only signed the mail
body, but not the whole mail.  PGPfreeware Outlook Express plug-in can
only sign the mail body.  It cannot use S/MIME sign the whole mail.  But
I sign the whole mail, including the attachments such as debug logs,
sample configuration files or patches I wrote (which, like software
distribution, needs signature).  It's not fully functional if you can
only sign the mail body.

> And it's just polite to send standard plain text IMHO....

    PGP/SMIME mail is standard (RFC 2015, also, OpenPGP RFC 2440).  It's
definitly plain text.  It's Microsoft Outlook Express (or, also, Hotmail)
that is not standard compliant.  Outlook Express can deal with S/MIME
mails signed with X.509 keys, but not S/MIME mails signed with PGP keys.
If you receive a S/MIME mail signed with X.509 keys in Outlook Express,
it display the signed mail in plain text.  You will never question if it
is standard plain text or not.  :)

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:34:15 +1100
Zac Stevens <zts@cryptocracy.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I really don't see the point in signing messages to lists such as
> these.  After all, the signature verifies the integrity of the message and
> the identity of the sender - neither of which is particular important in
> this context.

    At least one.  It helps to keep a good habit of signing things
(words, mails, distributions, patches) that you do, and helps to keep
yourself be responsible to what you wrote.  :)

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 17:48:09 -0800
"Aaron Sturm" <aaron_sturm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about you don't waste your time replying to e-mails if you think they're
> a waste of time.

    I'll tell you what is a waste of time.  It's not my fault to send
RFC-2015/2440 S/MIME standard-conforming PGP signed mails.  It's
Microsoft's fault to be not standard-compliant.  But I'll have to take
time to explain how Microsoft processes mails here, un-paid, again and
again, just to comfort those that fear the result of Microsoft's
stupidity.  I've even been refused by some customer service department
just for the same reason, "unknown attachment", even I was a paid
customer.

    Right now I don't care a bit about this PGP stuff.  The subject of
this mail is "Content Negotiation with <DirectoryMatch> in Apache 2.0.43".
I spent 2 whole nights debugging, doing experiments, logging results,
searching internet, writing proper mail reports, just to make clear this
problem to my best extend.  I concern about whether this problem of
mod_dir, mod_negotiation and <DirectoryMatch> can be fixed.  But now I
have to explain this PGP thing, comforting those that fears for 2 days,
doing the same thing I have done many, many times in the past, just to
see if anyone knows this problem for 3-4 days.

    It's a waste of time.  I should report this as a bug directly and
ignore the bug-reporting suggestion written on the Apache website.

--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*'
imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw
PGP Key: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.txt

<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
TLUG List Manager: http://www.linux.org.tw/mailman/listinfo/tlug

Mime
View raw message