Mozilla doesn't seem to mind, at least most of the time. It tends to choke on Todd's pgp stuff now and then, but Pine really hates it. I've got pgpenvelope installed on there for the ocassional need to encrpyt sensitive material, but sending signed messages to a mailing list? good gawd! why?
You told it: signing is not the same as encrypting. In fact, encrypting to a mailing list wouldn't make sense (would it?), but signing definitely does. Obviously it's not about protecting the message from snooping, but about protecting it from tampering and to certify the sender (well, actually certifying that the sender had access to the correct secret).
Besides, it makes a political statement that I *do* use pgp and I'd like to use its encryption capabilities if the receiver can decrypt the message, even if the message isn't sensitive material (see <http://www.philzimmermann.com/essays-WhyIWrotePGP.shtml>).
For the same reason I have tls enabled in my mail server (even if at first look it may seem silly since most mail traffic is unencrypted).
And an additional feature of pgp/mime is that uncovers yet another bug in Outlook Express ;-)
Bye -- Luca Olivetti Note.- This message reached you today, it may not tomorrow if you are using MAPS or other RBL. They arbitrarily IP addresses not related in any way to spam, disrupting Internet connectivity. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/21/1944247 and http://theory.whirlycott.com/~phil/antispam/rbl-bad/rbl-bad.html
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
