On 25.03.15 21:41, Doug Barton wrote: > While this is strictly anecdotal evidence I would argue that it's a good > indication that we may not be ready for PGP/MIME as the default.
I think that fail, a signature.asc attachment, is still a "cleaner fail" than a non-PGP receiver getting a breakdown from inline PGP. And that is for every single email. I have not received a single question from anyone regarding my PGP/MIME signed emails. Not one. And I'm talking about the ones that don't use PGP / have no clue what PGP is. > FWIW, I have received various other messages privately from people who have > said the same thing ... They can see the attachment, but either message > verification fails, or there is no indication on their side that it is a > PGP-signed message at all. In this one I can see your email with the attachment, but also marked with a "good signature". -- Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
