On 02/26/2011 18:53, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 27/02/11 1:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:02:08 -0500, Avi<avi.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why? Inline is simple and effective. I'm curious as to why you
feel MIME is so much better.
http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
Thanks for the link.
I'd only add that in-line is fine for encrypting messages since all
the data in-line signing may whinge about (e.g. some UTF-8 characters)
would be safely tucked away inside the encrypted block.
If you look at the characteristics of the actual messages encrypted mail
is very similar whether it's in-line or MIME. It's signed messages that
make things interesting because the signature in a MIME message is
actually (sort of) an attachment but also sort of not, which is why it
confuses simple mail readers like Outlook Express.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
