| Art Alexion on 17 Apr 2005 11:01:51 -0000 |
|
Jeff Abrahamson wrote: >Is there a good reason for people to do this, or >should I politely suggest they use PGP/Mime instead? I also don't see >how to get mutt to auto-validate such messages the way it does for >PGP/Mime. >Any suggestions? I find that Outlook and AOL users that I write to get less freaked out over inline signatures than PGP/mine attachments. With PGP/MIME, I constantly get "I can't open your email [meaning attachment]", whereas with inline, they just think it is "net junk" and are comfortable ignoring it. I didn't know that inline signatures caused mutt problems, but I /think/ I send more mail to Outlook than mutt users. Also mutt users are probably more likely to understand what is going on. -- _______________________________________ Art Alexion Arthur S. Alexion LLC arthur [at] alexion [dot] com aim: aalexion sms: 2679725536 [at] messaging [dot] sprintpcs [dot] com PGP fingerprint: 52A4 B10C AA73 096F A661 92D2 3B65 8EAC ACC5 BA7A The attachment -- signature.asc -- is my electronic signature; no need for alarm. Info @ http://mysite.verizon.net/art.alexion/encryption/signature.asc.what.html Key for signed PDFs available at http://mysite.verizon.net/art.alexion/encryption/ArthurSAlexion.p7c The validation string is TTJY-ZILJ-BJJG. ________________________________________ Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|