On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:27:26PM -0500, Thomas Stivers wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:19:12 PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:05:04PM +0100, Lee Braiden wrote: > > > I would like to always sign my emails, but I always worry that people > > > will > > > dislike the extra overhead, and maybe find it hard to read. Do most > > > clients > > > display GPG signatures nicely now? > > > > > Pretty much. And since most now do S/MIME and PGP/MIME instead of the > > old ASCII inline, if they don't it shows up as some random attachment, > > instead of a bunch of crap at the top and bottom of a message. > > The problem is that you can't use it universally because there are still > way too many people using M$ products which simply don't display any > body for messages that are pgp/mime signed. Unfortunately these people > tend to be bosses, elderly family members, Etc. so you have to make an > effort to exclude them from receiving pgp/mime signed messages. Still > it's nice to have the if it ain't signed it ain't mine explanation.
If they are using it at home or at a workplace with lenient IT policies there are lots of options: http://www.google.com/search?q=gpg+outlook http://www.google.com/search?q=gpg+%22outlook+express%22 Of course, to really make this work nicely you need a slick server-side filtering setup (e.g., maildrop or sieve or procmail on an IMAP server). I guess a resonable client that can check for attachments can be made to extract the sigs and verify them, but I am not sure. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
pgpa9gG27IM80.pgp
Description: PGP signature
