Re: [openpgp] Deprecating compression support

Andre Heinecke <> Wed, 27 March 2019 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C53120450 for <>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.234
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8_Kf8zQrdytN for <>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6F01202A9 for <>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9983E8AE; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:59:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BwhCb2jw2gft; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:59:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esus.localnet ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1094A3E811; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:59:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Andre Heinecke <>
Cc: "Neal H. Walfield" <>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:59:32 +0100
Message-ID: <1825148.YadyztgY27@esus>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <2301148.obROdnegVN@esus> <2020697.uNjeE9oTgC@esus> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5182660.fWC2pMMWap"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Deprecating compression support
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:59:51 -0000


On Wednesday 27 March 2019 11:46:01 CET Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Are you using some container format?  PGP/Mime with multiple
> attachments?  Something else?

As you know we are using tar archives. We take pains that our tar 
implementation is compatible with the tar format used by PGP.

Marcus already made that point. "Why are you not using tar.gz.gpg" if you use 
something out of the standard anyway?

Here I said that this will move something that was standartized (the 
compression) out of the standard and leave it to the application. 

But if you dislike my example with a folder, which I chose to underline that 
compression is needed. Please ignore it and respond to the other points made 
in this thread like compression for mails or just replace "folder" in my 
example with "file" and there you go.

I find this kind of discussion about my example unhelpful and distracting on 
this list. If you want to further discuss this please do it off list.


-- - a brand of g10 Code, the GnuPG experts.

g10 Code GmbH, Erkrath/Germany, AG Wuppertal HRB14459
GF Werner Koch, USt-Id DE215605608,

GnuPG e.V., Rochusstr. 44, D-40479 Düsseldorf.  VR 11482 Düsseldorf
Vorstand: W.Koch, M.Gollowitzer, A.Heinecke.    Mail:
Finanzamt D-Altstadt, St-Nr: 103/5923/1779.   Tel: +49-2104-4938799