On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > If the recipient's mailer supports PGP/MIME, this is of course a way > > better solution than any form of traditional inline PGP. All > > charsets are then cleanly usable, without any hack or guesswork. > > From the major MUAs only Outlook has problems with PGP/MIME. However, > the GpgOL included in gpg4win 1.1.3 works well although with some > deficies in the user interface. The forthcoming version of GpgOL (as > available in SVN) features a far better integration and also sends > PGP/MIME.
Thank you very much for the elaborate explanations. I see now that my decision to switch from PGP/MIME to inline signing a while ago caused the problem. I'll switch back to PGP/MIME and ignore recipients running Outlook. I don't want to spend my time working around shortcomings in crap software. Thanks again. Martin _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
