pgp/mime vs in-line pgp

Per Tunedal Casual pt at
Wed Apr 14 10:31:30 CEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

At 09:56 2004-04-14, you wrote:
 >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.

NO, PGP-MIME looks really strange in Outlook Express. You'd better try it!

I cannot give up the OE-users as they are the mainpart of my customers.
Thus I have to stick to inlined pgp-signing (doesn't always verify OK) or
switch to S-MIME (rather not!).

Per Tunedal

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.94


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list