On Sep 9, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 9/9/13 11:02 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Peter,
--On September 8, 2013 at 5:19:51 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> wrote:
But until the MUAs across the board support it out of the box,
I believe most people don't know about it or know what it
means.
So that's an opportunity to educate people. For instance, perhaps
the Internet Society might be interested in taking on that task.
Is there a reason you choose to use "inline" signing with PGP
rather than multipart/signed? Is that a technical reason (e.g.,
poor interoperability)?
Ignorance or misconfiguration in my use of Thunderbird, it seems.
Or maybe you are not actually using PGP and are simply relying on
http://xkcd.com/1181/ ?
I''ve just added:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
to my .sig file collection.
Wonder how many MUTs will become unhappy? :-P
W
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
--
It must be authentic:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://xkcd.com/1181/
W