signature as attachment?
Wed Jul 16 05:58:02 2003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On 15-Jul-2003, Eddie Roosenmaallen wrote:
> One thing to consider is that if you're corresponding with Windows
> users, they probably can't read PGP/MIME messages. Either the sig will
> be lost (best case), or they will see a blank message (common case).
Slightly better than the "best" case you presented: The attachment is
preserved and shown as an attached file of type
OT: Is it part of the PGP/MIME statndard that the signature should not
have a suggested attachment filename? I'd think it would make more
sense to give a filename, to avoid having the MUA choose its own
arbitrary name for the attachment.
\ "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily |
`\ escaped the chronicler's mind." -- Douglas Adams |
firstname.lastname@example.org F'print 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----