[gnupg-users] MUA questions

[David Alban]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Atom,

At 2004/02/04/20:14 -0500 Atom 'Smasher' <atom-gpg at suspicious.org> wrote:
> is it generally considered better etiquette to use an inline or attached
> signature? which one is considered to be supported most widely [in mail
> clients]?

I can't speak to ettiquette, but I can share something that works for
me.  I clearsign the message bodies inline.  (I usually generate
simple emails without attachments.)  I haven't received a single
complaint since I started doing it.

I used to make the signature an attachment.  Some folks would inform
me that they "couldn't open the attachment I sent them".  At least
once, a recipient's mail program wouldn't show them the message
body.  Sometimes ambitious spam programs would return my message
telling me that a virus was attached (I use mutt on linux and there
was no virus in the single attachment that was simply a gpg
signature!).  I got tired of the hassle.  So I switched to inlining.

As I mentioned above, I use mutt.  In mutt, I have ctrl-p bound to a
macro that filters the message body I'm composing through a command,
which just happens to be:

  gpg --clearsign

So I compose my message and invoke the clearsigning macro just
before sending.  What results is a simple ascii message without
attachments.  All mailers can handle that, right? :-)

David
- -- 
Live in a world of your own, but always welcome visitors.
                                 ***
Cave fruticem.             http://extasia.org/cave-fruticem/
Come to sig-beer-west!     http://extasia.org/sig-beer-west/
Unix sysadmin available:   http://extasia.org/resume/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAIZ5+Ph0M9c/OpdARAvl6AJ9r6w7VG3eS0heYypuZvzC1NgaL/QCgkplq
vwIIOvsf3BZlkA4aUCYWMzs=
=acnk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----