MIME or inline signature ?
Greg Sabino Mullane
greg at turnstep.com
Sat Feb 14 22:26:55 CET 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> This part appears to be out of date:
> Since PGP/MIME can't reliably be sent to the three largest GnuPG
> mailing lists, itÃ¢s hard to claim that PGP/MIME is ready for
> widespread usage. For now, itÃ¢s best to use inline traffic unless you
> can be certain that PGP/MIME messages will not be mangled in transit.
> I don't know if this is true for PGP-Basics, but it is certainly not
> true for enigmail or gnupg-users. Please update the FAQ!
> --dkg, noting the irony of the parent message being sent with
> S/MIME, an entirely different standard
Also ironic, and one of the main reasons I prefer inline, is the
inability of many archiving systems to preserve attachments -
For example, when one visits the message I quoted above:
This appears at the bottom of the message:
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 948 bytes
Desc: not available
(That URL path on lists.gnupg.org is 404, unless I am
overlooking some needed munging.)
While some sites manage to keep the attachement
intact (e.g. gossamer-threads.com), most do not, e.g.
So far all of inline's flaws, it is far better at maintaining
message integrity (see also: forwarding and cut-n-paste).
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201502141623
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users