-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to Chris De Young's message sent 2005-08-09 17:24:
>> I primarily use inlined PGP because I'm tired of having my S/MIME
>> signed mail bounced back to me as undeliverable because "pkcs7
>> signature is listed as a dangerous attachment on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris De Young wrote:
> Maybe there are a few who wonder enough what it is you're sending them
> to go figure it out; if so, that's a win, but I doubt it happens very
> often. :)
>
Don't underestimate it. I saw "Using Enigmail with Thunderbird"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michael Daigle wrote:
> It's unfortunate, but it's prevalent - and that's why inlined PGP is a
> good thing. We can still retain message authentication despite the
> goof-ball between us and the recipient.
Quite often, the goof-ball *is* the rec
David Srbecky wrote:
>I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However,
>MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the
>signature in the mail headers.
That would be easy to do in a X-PGP-Signature header or something similar.
The X- headers are free to us
> I primarily use inlined PGP because I'm tired of having my S/MIME signed
> mail bounced back to me as undeliverable because "pkcs7 signature is
> listed as a dangerous attachment on this server". What's so dangerous
> about a S/MIME signature?! Apparently, it's the same danger that's
> present in
David Srbecky schrieb:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>
>> Alphax schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME)
> message in
> OutlookExpress? RRR .
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
>>
>>
>>
>> The attach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to Greg Sabino Mullane's message sent 2005-08-09 11:26:
* 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 ve
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
attachments."
I can say that I've worked in such company. Oddly enough, the server
seemed to strip only the application/pgp, or whatever the MIME type is,
replacing it with some bogus MS-TNEF attachme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> * 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 attachment
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:40 +0200, Thomas Kuehne said:
> OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> encryption plugins.
Use a MIME compliant MUA and not such a spam/DoS/virus vector.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
Gnupg-
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Alphax schrieb:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
OutlookExpress? RRR .
Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
"Re: Extra infor
Alphax schrieb:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>
>>>Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
>>>OutlookExpress? RRR .
>
> Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
"Re: Extra information in public
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
> OutlookExpress? RRR .
>
>
> Thomas
>
Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Prefer
Chris De Young schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>>>Just say no to inline PGP!
>>
>>Some reasons I use inline:
>>
> 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
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -, 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 encounte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> 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.
* It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a
webpage) while keeping
16 matches
Mail list logo
