pgp/mime vs in-line pgp

Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder avbidder at
Wed Apr 14 09:56:55 CEST 2004

(don't cc: me please)

On Wednesday 14 April 2004 08.32, Per Tunedal Casual wrote:

> PGP-MIME is far better but unfortunately PGP-MIME signed mail is not
> transparent to non-pgp users. They will be confused by the empty mail
> with the two strange attachments (though readable in a texteditor).
> Thus I cannot use PGP-MIME widely.

Name one mailer except MSOE which also shows this behaviour. All other 
mailers I've come across properly implement MIME and can sensibly 
display MIME multipart messages with an unknown subtype. I have by now 
just given up on MSOE users: they want to live that way, so be it 
(There are very few exceptions to this rule - job applications is one 
example where it is vital for me that my messages are read :-/.

The confusion for the user is exactly the same: it is a strange 
attachment in one case, and it is '----- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE 
-----' at the top and a strange blurb at the bottom in the other case.

(Arrgh! And now I can't find the magic checkbox to enable PGP/MIME as 
default in kmail. It's the default at home - but inline is the default 
on this machine. Anybody?)

-- vbi

Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 331 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040414/6c6d50d3/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list