On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > Just say no to inline PGP! > > Some reasons I use inline: > > * My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose > systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very few that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments then your message is still intact, just unsigned. > * It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a > webpage) while keeping the signature. Keeping it, perhaps. Keeping it intact, not so much. Any reformatting done by a web browser (which is perfectly legitimate for the browser to do) will break the signature, of course. If you force the formatting with <pre> tags, you've made a concession which allows the MIME version to work equally well. > It is also easy for people > to forward the signed message. Forwarding a MIME message (intact) is, arguably, even easier. I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a generally applicable standard. The ability to sign attachments gracefully isn't the only plus, for example, but that alone seems to be enough to make MIME a clear winner. Cheers, -Chris
pgpV3HeMeoU1n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
