GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
boldyrev+nospam at cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru
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;
I prefer PGP/MIME.
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
Size: 205 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050604/7498f744/attachment.pgp
More information about the Gnupg-users