We suggest to use "no-mime signature" as a description of this less wanted method to sign a mail body contents everywhere. Therefore we suggest to give the old format a different name: "no-mime signed". The chance to see the text correctly with OpenPGP/MIME is much higher and the email is better structured, aka more clearly structured. But we know that the user experience is much better with the OpenPGP/MIME way of clearsigning the mail body.
"clear" is something positive, something you would want. Some people used to call this "clearsigned" or "inline", but we believe this to be missleading. In short: You really want proper MIME handling like with OpenPGP/MIME! Conclusion: This is best for the user experience and compatibility.Webmailers do not expose the inner structure to Browser-Plugins.GpgOL shows that this is a hard in Outlook, probably impossible to do in some elder revisions of Outlook.In order to implement it, the email application must allow the crypto module to influence the raw MIME structure of the email.Outlook in some versions requires the user to explicitely open the body as attachment. Some email applications are not MIME compatible, e.g.all MIME compatible clients show the signed text, even if they cannot understand the signature.
#Convert gpg for outlook 2013 how to
There are different formats how to sign the contents of an email:Ĭontent-Type: application/pgp-signature name=signature.asc
0 kommentar(er)
