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
-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
-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
Richard Sperry wrote:
What I am wondering is if we can simply UUencode attachments, leave them
alone and clear sign the whole message.
Yes. However, AFAIK base64 is the default for attachments, and uuencode does
have some problems with (now probably antique and not used any more) mail
servers.
Hello Michael,
On Wednesday, August 3, 2005 at 8:57:07 PM +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
My MUA, muttng, correctly identifies the input data prior to signing
as iso-8859-15 and after signing as utf-8
Mutt half-recently began to force outgoing traditional inline PGP
messages to UTF-8,
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:16:24 +0200 (CEST), Alain Bench said:
Mutt half-recently began to force outgoing traditional inline PGP
messages to UTF-8, disregarding the $send_charset list (in fact acting
Which is IMHO a proper interpretation of the OpenPGP specs.
Despite what a lot of people
I use gnupg-1.4.1 on GNU/Linux (up-to-date Gentoo, Linux 2.6.12 on
AMD64 if it matters) to sign and encrypt my mail, and everything is
fine as long as I stay with strictly us-ascii. However, when I use
other characters (mostly national characters covered by iso-8859-15),
gnupg converts the input
