On Saturday, February 26, 2011, MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Friday 25 February 2011 at 1:45:03 AM, in > > <mid:87lj14x4yo....@servo.finestructure.net>, Jameson Rollins wrote: > > Yikes! I thought we were almost done killing inline > > signatures! Don't revive it now! > > > > If PGP/MIME is broken on android, we need to get them > > to fix it, not go backwards to inline pgp. > > Using inline PGP signatures means using the simpler and more reliable > of the two solutions. The fact that its specification was defined > earlier does not mean using inline signatures is a step backwards; > PGP/MIME is a complement to pgp inline, not a replacement.
The major problem I see with using cleartext signatures in email is the lack for support of non-ASCII text (or, more precisely, character encoding). Obviously, using ASCII armor to protect the text from being re-encoded to another encoding is no solution, since this will make inline PGP signed messages much less accessible than PGP/MIME messages. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
