ben at adversary.org
Sun Mar 13 23:06:20 CET 2011
On 14/03/11 5:19 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>> On 13/03/11 7:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> Or simply use pgp-inline so that the disclaimer comes after the
>> Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
> I disagree. This very mailing list demonstrates how to add a footer
> to a message without breaking PGP/MIME signatures.
Although I've received other email from the OP that did not include
the footer, so now I'm curious to know where it came from, especially
since he is using the GMail MX servers.
> I don't accept the example of a broken or wrongly configured mail
> application/gateway as argument in favor of inline PGP. Of course,
> that's just MHO. Feel free to have a different opinion.
I don't think it is appropriate for broken MUAs or MTAs to be an
appropriate reason for using in-line signatures and I prefer PGP/MIME
because I think it's better (for the reasons many people have
previously mentioned on this list). I don't, however, agree with the
constant repetition of statements to the effect that in-line is
For a die-hard "in-line is better" stance you'll have to look to
someone else (yes, MFPA, I'm looking at you). ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users