On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Inline (aka "clear text") signatures are the old and deprecated form. > S/MIME PGP detached signatures would be the right way to go. But using > new features, which are not [fully] supported by all mail user agents > and list management software, usually has side effects. Such as > unreadable Base64 encoded message bodies in list archives or > signatures, which verify as bad because the mailing-list software > modifies the mesage body content. > I think that the bottom line is that signing messages is a matter of personal preference. I keep it on by default and encourage clients to do the same. In line or by attachment may be a function of the mail client. Evolution creates attachments by default. On the recipient end, I prefer the attachment since it "decodes" automatically. Again, that's related to the client. The most disturbing issue is that Symantec sells a product that is incapable of distinguishing between PGP and executable attachments. Reliance on this product might bounce more valid mail than SPEWS ever did. Microsoft's mail server is broken enough without adding more impediments to communications. Moreover, this is an issue that has been discussed with respect to Sturman as recently as last July. It's hard to believe that they would not correct this issue by now given the implications. Some nitwit suggested that, by posting this matter to the list (from which the problem originates), it is - somehow - spam. I disagree.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
