-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Micah Gersten wrote: > Don't know if you want to change the subject, but this also occurs when > replying to bugs as well as creating new ones. >
Well, replies aren't *required* to have them like new bug postings are, so it is slightly different.
I'm fine with it hiding/stripping gpg signatures on replies. The original concern was that
1) In order to request a new bug *at all* you had to use a gpg signature 2) The signatures were not stripped from the request email
thus
3) You always had a gpg signature on the description for any bug that was reported by email.
John =:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpnHXAACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOiugCeIznaTO0K/8HNIfzcVEO17qsz rJ0AnA0mLKjO5B8YZ+hsXV4EiGAEAKqn =IP3h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Micah Gersten wrote:
> Don't know if you want to change the subject, but this also occurs when
> replying to bugs as well as creating new ones.
>
Well, replies aren't *required* to have them like new bug postings are,
so it is slightly different.
I'm fine with it hiding/stripping gpg signatures on replies. The
original concern was that
1) In order to request a new bug *at all* you had to use a gpg signature
2) The signatures were not stripped from the request email
thus
3) You always had a gpg signature on the description for any bug that
was reported by email.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- enigmail. mozdev. org/
nHXAACgkQJdeBCY SNAAOiugCeIznaT O0K/8HNIfzcVEO1 7qsz YZ+hsXV4EiGAEAK qn
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkp
rJ0AnA0mLKjO5B8
=IP3h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----