> 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 a PGP/MIME message - mail server admin stupidity. > > 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.
Why not just encrypt the mail, thus hiding the signature part from the goofball? As far as the problem with Outlook, don't use it, and if you have to send mail to Outlook users who complain, there's probably no point in signing it in the first place -- they don't care and won't ever check it. 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. :) -C
pgpHNBqu6SbnN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
