Re: let's look... Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?

On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 22:35, Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> One alternative, that may or not be as controversial as adding parameters 
> to Content-Type, would be to add a parameter to Content-Disposition 
> instead, e.g.:
Hmmm. While it's not so nice to access via IMAP, and it's conceptually
not so elegant, why not add an extra header? 

X-PGP-Data: clearsigned 
or
X-PGP-Data: encrypted

We get
 + no MIME parser gets confused, situation will be no worse than it is
now
 + many MUAs allow extra headers to be added to messages with little
effort. So, people could use this even if their mailer doesn't.
 + same, for incoming mail: procmail and formail are your friends, so if
your MUA supports this you can view (almost) all inline signed msgs
 - needs special casing in the MUA when parsing a message. But inline
pgp needs special casing anyway, so it's probably still better than
status quo.

The idea to standardise to utf-8 may still be a good one, but I feel
it's not necessary as long as both gpg and sending MUA have the same
opinion of the charset used (and declare it, too).

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/subkeys

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part