Well I use both a certificate based signature and GPG inline.  I use the 
certificate as default, but if I am replying to a person who uses 
PGP/GPG then I will use that type of signing.

Nate Duehr wrote:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> A "solution" to the "problem" would be for Justin not to digitally 
>> sign his messages to the list. As OE is quite likely the largest 
>> single browser used this would be a quick way of getting his messages 
>> read. There is probably a better method which allows signing and OE 
>> display. I'll wait until the answerings die down and then see if 
>> there's anything obvious in what i get.
>
>
> The problems with standards for digital e-mail signatures have been 
> going on for years.
>
> Some programs are intelligent and can render pretty much any digital 
> signature (inline, MIME-multipart, and other standards) and figure 
> them out.  OE and Outlook live off in their own little world that only 
> does one type that's not really documented anywhere in an RFC.  Still 
> others (mutt on Unix comes to mind) refuse to code in anything that 
> isn't an RFC-agreed-to-standard.  Still others rely on PGP-inline 
> ASCII-armored keys they just put in their Signature files.
>
> And people wonder why digital signatures never took off.  Testosterone 
> apparently played a large role.  Engineers pissing on each other's 
> Wheaties if they didn't like the way the other guy did it.   Which 
> lead to users bickering about how it "looks" on their screens, which 
> leads to everyone just turning the silly things off.
>
> Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist