Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
encoding alone, how?)
Greg Sabino Mullane
greg at turnstep.com
Tue Aug 9 17:26:28 CEST 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> * 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.
I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
> * 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.
Well, of course one uses a PRE tag, that was implied. And I don't see
how the MIME version works equally well - how would you verify a
webpage dump of a MIME stream?
> 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.
I'm not arguing giving up MIME at all - there are situations where it is
indispensable, and I even use it on some occasions. But I did want to
counter the "inline is evil and should never ever be used by anyone"
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508091124
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users