GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing

Ivan Boldyrev boldyrev+nospam at
Sat Jun 4 09:38:13 CEST 2005

On 9130 day of my life Dan Mundy wrote:
> 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!

Clearsigning can be processed by recipient even if his mail client
dosn't know anything about GPG/PGP.  PGP/MIME needs mail client

However, clearsigning has problem with attachments and charsets.  You
can't reconstruct charset of original message -- was it UTF-8, KOI8-R
or windows-1251.  PGP/MIME handles it gracefully.

Clearsinged messages can be corrupted by transitional mail servers;
PGP/MIME cannot.

I prefer PGP/MIME.

Ivan Boldyrev

                Tragedy of programmers is that computer is wonderful toy
                            and programmers have to use it in their work.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 205 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050604/7498f744/attachment.pgp

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list