Arguments for inline PGP

[David Srbecky]

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> Alphax schrieb:
> 
> 
>>Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
>>>>OutlookExpress? AAAARRRGGGG .....
>>
>>Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
> 
> 
> The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
> "Re: Extra information in public key" to this list.
> 
> If the MIME declaration is change from
> 
> multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> 
> to
> 
> multipart/mixed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> 
> OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> encryption plugins.

Sorry for that. I do not know that happened. (Could it be some misuse of 
"Edit as New..."?)

I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However, 
MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the 
signature in the mail headers.

David Srbecky
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/a604ffac/signature.pgp