MIME vs. inline (was Re: Signature in Attachment)

[Atom 'Smasher']

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Chris De Young wrote:

>> But old-style inline signatures are deprecated for very good reasons.
>
> Actually, this may be a dumb question, what are some of those reasons 
> (or can you point me to some documentation if this is a re-run for 
> everyone else)? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do have this 
> discussion around here every so often with people who prefer inline 
> signatures, and I'm not usually making very forceful arguments - 
> especially not to people who don't really understand MIME and aren't 
> always quite sure what their mail client is showing them.  "But it's 
> less confusing this way!" (the inline way)
=================

my reasons for preferring inline signatures and encryption:
   1) poorly configured virus filters *NEVER* tear up inline pgp
   2) it's simple to implement
   3) many MUAs can't handle pgp-mime

i really think that rumors of inline pgp being dead are grossly 
exaggerated... it's defined in rfc2440 sections 6-7 (i always get a kick 
out of the hidden message in 6.6 ;)


- -- 
         ...atom

  _________________________________________
  PGP key - http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Destroy the family, and the society will collapse."
 		-- Vladimir Lenin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.92 (FreeBSD)
Comment: What is this gibberish?
Comment: http://atom.smasher.org/links/#digital_signatures

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJBt9vEAAoJEAx/d+cTpVci7xIH/10pPu0Fou9uf+3TJxVLi31M
w+geBgTO05ryhmyhFQyGfYtGg4o7YVCMjvPqIj/bVRD9+KuXafT0+Nz+bHHmzrWe
acRXPtiKBUEb6zzD2zukRhwRL+jI5YufngYEkeA4B//ZMpUrj3IsBQThchGOAD+J
JKtsynIxtfW17zIhVY40GubID5i3OELjSuSVafvckddQxpc83IxylRYV+xVTR1gF
6Xn77y6JpMEqilhfUiRzQK16unAvFSOr64AMyeOKE/CXVCFggi7yJHXisJt6qJRt
j8NcVJp1RZmL4XLH50vMZj+DdrImF+sFQ2UX9Rwn+ZGhXoMLloG+SFutBetfjv8=
=/ja5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----