On 07/15/2014 01:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > For example, it's a fact that inline signatures work better with a wide > variety of software (MTAs, mailing lists, etc.). That's the chief "pro" > in terms of using inline. > > The chief "con" is that for people who receive the message who are not > using PGP it's "ugly" (which is to say that people sometimes do complain > about the "weird" stuff that is in your message).
I'm frustrated to have to do this, but i do not think this is an accurate summary of the situation. MTAs are at least as likely to break inline message signatures as PGP/MIME-signed messages, and there are several other arguments against Inline PGP that i think are more important than things looking "ugly". I've documented some of them here: https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful/ In fairness, i think the chief argument in favor of emitting inline PGP signatures is that there are apparently a few broken MUAs out there (apparently, some versions of android mail client and whatever windows offers as a free MUA) that don't know how to display a PGP/MIME-signed message properly, and fixing those clients is out of scope for this list. This will be my last message on this thread. --dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
