Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
encoding alone, how?)
Chris De Young
chd at chud.net
Tue Aug 9 09:11:09 CEST 2005
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > Just say no to inline PGP!
> Some reasons I use inline:
> * My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
> systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very few
that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments
then your message is still intact, just unsigned.
> * It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a
> webpage) while keeping the signature.
Keeping it, perhaps. Keeping it intact, not so much. Any
reformatting done by a web browser (which is perfectly legitimate for
the browser to do) will break the signature, of course. If you force
the formatting with <pre> tags, you've made a concession which allows
the MIME version to work equally well.
> It is also easy for people
> to forward the signed message.
Forwarding a MIME message (intact) is, arguably, even easier.
I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the
benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a generally
applicable standard. The ability to sign attachments gracefully isn't
the only plus, for example, but that alone seems to be enough to make
MIME a clear winner.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/85bb0da7/attachment.pgp
More information about the Gnupg-users