GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing

Sean C. C. scc4fun at
Sat Jun 4 08:26:01 CEST 2005

Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the signature no
matter what their system. Some people like to use the current window
function of PGP and front-ends for GPG such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is
good for sending mail to many people some of whom have no idea of what
PGP/GPG is. Using PGP/MIME the signature appears as an attachment as
'signature.asc'. For people who aren't interested in PGP they will
probably never see the attachment. The down sides to PGP/MIME are that
people who use Outlook and OE will not be able to see them correctly.
They will see a blank email with two attachments: 1) the signature and
2) the actual message.

DISCLAIMER: I'm still learning myself about PGP/GPG, so this may not be
exactly how it really is.

Dan Mundy said the following on 6/3/2005 8:30 PM:
> hey all,
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are.  which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
> thanks all,
> Dan
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at
-------------- 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/20050604/921a475b/signature.pgp

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list