Arguments for inline PGP

[Chris De Young]

> I primarily use inlined PGP because I'm tired of having my S/MIME signed
> mail bounced back to me as undeliverable because "pkcs7 signature is
> listed as a dangerous attachment on this server". What's so dangerous
> about a S/MIME signature?! Apparently, it's the same danger that's
> present in a PGP/MIME message - mail server admin stupidity.
> 
> It's unfortunate, but it's prevalent - and that's why inlined PGP is a
> good thing. We can still retain message authentication despite the
> goof-ball between us and the recipient.

Why not just encrypt the mail, thus hiding the signature part from the
goofball?

As far as the problem with Outlook, don't use it, and if you have to
send mail to Outlook users who complain, there's probably no point in
signing it in the first place -- they don't care and won't ever check
it.  

Maybe there are a few who wonder enough what it is you're sending them
to go figure it out; if so, that's a win, but I doubt it happens very
often.  :)

-C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/3c07353d/attachment.pgp