From: Greg Troxel <gdt(_at_)ir(_dot_)bbn(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?
Given Ned's comments, how about "text/openpgp"?
I will support the text/openpgp (only for PGP clear signature, see
below) if proposed.
Note that the text/pgp approach was proposed several times (once
during standardizing RFC 2015, and several times after RFC 2015)
to maintain backward compatibility to both non-MIME-aware and
MIME-aware-but-non-PGP/MIME-aware user agents.
My concern is that these proposals were always rejected by IETF
without reasons which make sense to me.
This would specify the type of the content in the type, and whether
the contents are a key block, encrypted message, signed message, or
clearsigned message is already in the contents.
Please use subtypes of "application" for signed message and encrypted
message. We need to carefully consider character set issues for them.
Just saying "use UTF-8" does not solve situation at least in Japan.
Conversion from a traditional CJK character set to UTF-8 is quite
tough.
For PGP clear signature, we are free from this kind of character set
issues because the "charset" parameter tells. See the followin
example:
Content-Type: text/openpgp; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Quoted-Printable(PGP clear signature in ISO-8859-1)
--Kazu