PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)
mailing-lists at asatiifm.net
Wed Mar 25 21:20:40 CET 2015
On 25.03.15 21:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> While this is strictly anecdotal evidence I would argue that it's a good
> indication that we may not be ready for PGP/MIME as the default.
I think that fail, a signature.asc attachment, is still a "cleaner fail"
than a non-PGP receiver getting a breakdown from inline PGP. And that is
for every single email.
I have not received a single question from anyone regarding my PGP/MIME
signed emails. Not one. And I'm talking about the ones that don't use
PGP / have no clue what PGP is.
> FWIW, I have received various other messages privately from people who have said the same thing ... They can see the attachment, but either message verification fails, or there is no indication on their side that it is a PGP-signed message at all.
In this one I can see your email with the attachment, but also marked
with a "good signature".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 648 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users