PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Ville Määttä]

On 25.03.15 22:32, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 3/25/15 1:20 PM, Ville Määttä wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> How are you using the term "breakdown" here? If their client isn't doing
> PGP they see some extraneous text, and a signature block. While I agree
> that for those not using PGP that is clutter, I am not sure what you
> mean by "breakdown."

That's a "mental breakdown" of the user :). Sorry about the ambiguity.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> We've already established that PGP/MIME is a "cleaner" solution for those that don't use PGP. I'm not debating that point, and I don't think anyone else is either. 

I suppose I must've missed that we had established that…

> The question at hand is for those that *do* use PGP, which is more effective? TMK there are no mail clients that fail to process a valid in-line signature, but obviously there are still clients that cannot correctly handle PGP/MIME. 

True.

I consider both inline and PGP/MIME equally to be something of a MUST
support for any client / plugin that claims to support PGP. Whether
support is done by the client itself or a plugin is not that important
to me as long as someone is maintaining support.

-- 
Ville

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 648 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150330/4d9bc917/attachment.sig>