-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michael Daigle wrote:
snip
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.
Quite often, the goof-ball *is* the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris De Young wrote:
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. :)
Don't underestimate it. I saw Using Enigmail with Thunderbird and
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Just say no to inline PGP!
Some reasons I use inline:
* My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered
Chris De Young schrieb:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:02AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Just say no to inline PGP!
Some reasons I use inline:
snip
I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the
benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Alphax schrieb:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
OutlookExpress? RRR .
Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
Re: Extra
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:40 +0200, Thomas Kuehne said:
OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
encryption plugins.
Use a MIME compliant MUA and not such a spam/DoS/virus vector.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very few
that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I should have said whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
attachments.
I can say that I've worked in such company. Oddly enough, the server
seemed to strip only the application/pgp, or whatever the MIME type is,
replacing it with some bogus MS-TNEF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to Greg Sabino Mullane's message sent 2005-08-09 11:26:
* My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very
few
David Srbecky schrieb:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Alphax schrieb:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME)
message in
OutlookExpress? RRR .
Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent
David Srbecky wrote:
I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However,
MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the
signature in the mail headers.
That would be easy to do in a X-PGP-Signature header or something similar.
The X- headers are free to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just say no to inline PGP!
Some reasons I use inline:
* My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
* It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a
webpage) while keeping
12 matches
Mail list logo
