Re: [openpgp] incomplete/confusing guidance around "Hash" Armor header for cleartext signing framework

Werner Koch <> Thu, 18 March 2021 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3103A2539 for <>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-R7ie6kjHzQ for <>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4D53A252C for <>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zBIFGEOltTpTCSwI3gyqJ8GJdKtBMhT4z+3SeP9WIpE=; b=kpTfExMNodVuXkhhRs6jfSw/oB ymJxdegzfzTgenuJczz8R38LJsnk8pfXssiShRGwiaN0Qyeqjz6Xs34ew+CJXqnDHzoZRpc6Y2BEd dEUvOMHZMmcAZhf/H3GSCHC1oIWyusWaPdOxMQy/7NqnRWXknlEpajvFfNWKc8dCpy9w=;
Received: from uucp by with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1lMoM5-0006vR-2D for <>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:50:09 +0100
Received: from wk by with local (Exim 4.92 #5 (Debian)) id 1lMoI8-0000El-VJ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:46:04 +0100
From: Werner Koch <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81ngel?= <>
References: <> <>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81ngel?= <>,
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:46:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> (=?utf-8?Q?=22=C3=81ngel=22's?= message of "Thu, 18 Mar 2021 02:20:02 +0100")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Afghanistan_halcon_bank_Looting_Law_enforcement_Reno_OTP_State_of=em"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] incomplete/confusing guidance around "Hash" Armor header for cleartext signing framework
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:50:19 -0000

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 02:20, Ángel said:

> I think the phrase
>>      - One or more "Hash" Armor Headers,
> should have been
>>      - One or more Armor Headers,

Nope becuase ...

> Then it covers other armor headers that may be present, such as
> "Charset:", and then it suddenly makes sense the following discussion

There should be only one Charset header.

ctuallay I would like to drop Charset because it is useless becauuse we
can also interpret that the Charset must be UTF-8.  In any case, MIME is
a way better method to define such properties.  Better have that only at
one place to avoid conflicts - and the armor header are not protected
which has led to questions in the past.



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.