Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Michael's PGP Signature

[Simon Ward]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 10:11:40PM +0100, Andrew Gladwell wrote:

> messages that none of us really needs to see.  On the other hand, it's
> just the way Michael's software works and it cannot be changed […]

> For those who receive each message as it comes it's probably not the
> end of the world in any case.  But for those who, like myself,
> receive the daily digest it might be a little intrusive.

Some suggestions:

1) When signing email, use PGP/MIME wherever possible.  This has
advantages and disadvantages depending on point of view:

  * It doesn’t work with mailing lists that mangle emails (this mailing
    list does not, and most sensibly setup lists should not). Then
    again, inline PGP does not always work for these lists anyway.

  * Signatures appear as binary attachments that often get stripped from
    email archives. They probably also get stripped from inline text
    digests (good for digest readers who don’t want to see them).

  * Microsoft Outlook (Express?), and maybe some other email clients,
    just don’t handle these well. (Suggest they use a better MUA, or
    look into GpgOL.)

  * It’s an RFC, and should be standardised across supporting MUAs,
    works with attachments, and is in general more flexible than inline
    PGP signatures.

I do this, and accept the compromises. On lists that mangle emails, I
fall back to inline signing (when I remember, I should automate that).

2) Use a mail client that handles PGP signatures. I don’t know how well
this works with inline text digests.  The signatures should then be
“stripped” from the email with the MUA indicating that part of the
message is signed. It does not matter if you use OpenPGP.

Thunderbird with Enigmail, Claws Mail, Mutt, KMail, Evolution are all
MUAs that can do this.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature