pgp/mime vs in-line pgp
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
avbidder at fortytwo.ch
Wed Apr 14 09:49:47 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 21.52, Atom 'Smasher' wrote:
> 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...?)
If the output of gpg --clearsign < 'some text file' is not plain text, I
don't know what is.
Email is a tool to transport plain text bodies around. gpg --clearsign
produces plain text, given plain text input. The output of gpg
- --clearsign follows rfc2440. That's all there is.
> it would be nice to sign/encrypt attachments all at once, but i can
> always sign/encrypt them individually, before attaching them.
Having to send attachments to Outlook-Expressivistically challenged
people, I just include the sha1 of the attached files at the bottom of
the clearsigned body. This protects the attachments well enough, and
the recipient doesn't have to know anything if he doesn't want to
verify the attachments.
Of course, none of the OE users I know ill ever have the faintest idea
what I'm doing - but it's a matter of principle...
- -- vbi
(Please don't cc: me)
"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain."
-- G. Fitch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: get my key from http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users