On Sep 9, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote:
> Signed PGP part > On 9/9/13 11:02 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > --On September 8, 2013 at 5:19:51 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre > > <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > > > >>> But until the MUAs across the board support it out of the box, > >>> I believe most people don't know about it or know what it > >>> means. > >> > >> So that's an opportunity to educate people. For instance, perhaps > >> the Internet Society might be interested in taking on that task. > > > > Is there a reason you choose to use "inline" signing with PGP > > rather than multipart/signed? Is that a technical reason (e.g., > > poor interoperability)? > > Ignorance or misconfiguration in my use of Thunderbird, it seems. Or maybe you are not actually using PGP and are simply relying on http://xkcd.com/1181/ ? I''ve just added: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 to my .sig file collection. Wonder how many MUTs will become unhappy? :-P W > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -- It must be authentic: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://xkcd.com/1181/ W
