[Enigmail] Hello World

[Alexander Dahl]

Hi Robert,

> Everybody else considers inline signatures to be _de rigeur_, and for
> good reason.  MTAs are allowed to mangle attachments, to strip them, to
> repackage them, whatever.  E.g., some mailing lists strip all
> attachments, since spammers have been known to abuse attachments to
> target mailing lists.

Sounds like you want to be really sure, that your signature arrives on
the recipient side.

> PGP/MIME signatures are a great idea from a theoretical POV.  From a
> practical POV, they're failures.

My personal experience is the other way round. People are annoyed and
disturbed by inline signatures. An attached signature is noticed but
doesn't distract you from the content of the mail. If the MTA strips the
signature and the recipient wants to be sure the mail is from me: he
should ask. 90% don't care anyway and I don't disturb them with an
inline signature.

The other point has to do with verification. I have seen much more
signatures I could not verify which were inline than attached.

What are the reasons for defaulting to inline signatures despite of MTAs
stripping attachements?

Greets
Alex

-- 
***** http://www.lespocky.de *******************************************
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase
a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
                                (Benjamin Franklin)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20080829/3315a016/attachment.bin>