pgp/mime vs in-line pgp

Atom 'Smasher' atom-gpg at
Tue Apr 13 21:52:51 CEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

> > of course, pgp/mime is an *official* standard, while in-line pgp is an
> > *unofficial* standard. why isn't in-line pgp *officially* recognized as an
> > email standard?
> Inline PGP is absolutely an official standard.  See RFC-2440.  It's
> just a different official standard than PGP/MIME (RFC-3156).
> Inline PGP can't handle all the situations that PGP/MIME does, and
> it's not nearly as transparent as PGP/MIME, but it is a genuine
> official standard.

i didn't realize that RFC 2440 made in-line pgp officially accepted as an
*email* standard... something about the body of an email must be plain
text... (what RFC is that...?)

as an official standard then, does mutt support it? i've heard that it
doesn't, which is one of the reasons that i was under the impression that
it's not an official standard.

it would be nice to sign/encrypt attachments all at once, but i can always
sign/encrypt them individually, before attaching them.


 PGP key -
 3EBE 2810 30AE 601D 54B2 4A90 9C28 0BBF 3D7D 41E3

	"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight
	 an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the
	 evil that they set out to destroy."
		-- Christopher Dawson,
		The Judgment of Nations, 1942
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: What is this gibberish?  -


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list