On 25.03.15 22:32, Doug Barton wrote: > On 3/25/15 1:20 PM, Ville Määttä wrote: >> 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. > > How are you using the term "breakdown" here? If their client isn't doing > PGP they see some extraneous text, and a signature block. While I agree > that for those not using PGP that is clutter, I am not sure what you > mean by "breakdown."
That's a "mental breakdown" of the user :). Sorry about the ambiguity. > >> 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. > > We've already established that PGP/MIME is a "cleaner" solution for those > that don't use PGP. I'm not debating that point, and I don't think anyone > else is either. I suppose I must've missed that we had established that… > The question at hand is for those that *do* use PGP, which is more effective? > TMK there are no mail clients that fail to process a valid in-line signature, > but obviously there are still clients that cannot correctly handle PGP/MIME. True. I consider both inline and PGP/MIME equally to be something of a MUST support for any client / plugin that claims to support PGP. Whether support is done by the client itself or a plugin is not that important to me as long as someone is maintaining support. -- Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
