GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing

[Sean C. C.]

Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the signature no
matter what their system. Some people like to use the current window
function of PGP and front-ends for GPG such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is
good for sending mail to many people some of whom have no idea of what
PGP/GPG is. Using PGP/MIME the signature appears as an attachment as
'signature.asc'. For people who aren't interested in PGP they will
probably never see the attachment. The down sides to PGP/MIME are that
people who use Outlook and OE will not be able to see them correctly.
They will see a blank email with two attachments: 1) the signature and
2) the actual message.

DISCLAIMER: I'm still learning myself about PGP/GPG, so this may not be
exactly how it really is.

Dan Mundy said the following on 6/3/2005 8:30 PM:
> hey all,
>
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are.  which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
>
> thanks all,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050604/921a475b/signature.pgp