Size: 2568
Comment: new page created (draft)
|
Size: 2766
Comment: Improvements
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 1: | Line 1: |
= Signature Handling in Emails = | = Signature Handling in Emails |
Line 5: | Line 5: |
== 1. PGP/MIME (prefered way) == | == 1. MIME (prefered way) PGP/~MIME or S/~MIME standards. |
Line 7: | Line 10: |
{{{ | {{{ Content-Type: multipart/signed Content-Type: text/plain |
Line 9: | Line 15: |
Line 10: | Line 17: |
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. | |
Line 23: | Line 29: |
* Disadvantages: - | * Disadvantages: Some email applications are not ~MIME compatible, e.g. Outlook in some versions requires the user to explicitely open the body as attachment. |
Line 27: | Line 33: |
In short: You really want PGP/MIME! | In short: You really want proper ~MIME handling like with PGP/MIME! |
Line 34: | Line 40: |
But we know that the user experience is much better with the PGP/MIME | But we know that the user experience is much better with the PGP/~MIME |
Line 36: | Line 42: |
PGP/MIME is much higher and the email is better structured, aka more clearly structured. Therefore we suggest to give the old format a different name: "no-mime signed". |
PGP/~MIME is much higher and the email is better structured, aka more clearly structured. Therefore '''we suggest to give the old format a different name: "no-mime signed"'''. |
Line 54: | Line 60: |
* Advantages: * Disadvantages: |
|
Line 61: | Line 63: |
This is a new format to try out in GpgOL 1.2.0 for Outlook 2010 and 2013. | This is a new format to try out in ~GpgOL 1.2.0 for Outlook 2010 and 2013. |
Line 69: | Line 71: |
XYZXYZ <- contains "This is the Text" | XYZXYZ <- contains "This is the Text" again, **unencrypted** |
Line 80: | Line 82: |
is an improvement or not. And we may remove it again in GpgOL. | is an improvement or not. And we may remove it again in ~GpgOL. |
Signature Handling in Emails
There are three different ways of handling signatures in emails:
1. MIME (prefered way)
PGP/MIME or S/MIME standards.
- Example:
Content-Type: multipart/signed Content-Type: text/plain This is the text. Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEXYZXYZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Advantages:
- attachments are signed as well
- no encoding problem
- easy way to encrypt a signed structure
- all MIME compatible clients show the signed text, even if they cannot understand the signature
- Disadvantages: Some email applications are not MIME compatible, e.g. Outlook in some versions requires the user to explicitely open the body as attachment.
- Conclusion: This is best for the user experience and compatibility. In short: You really want proper MIME handling like with PGP/MIME!
2. "no-mime" (old term: "clearsign")
Some people used to call this "clearsigned", but we believe this to be missleading. "clear" is something positive, something you would want. But we know that the user experience is much better with the PGP/MIME way of clearsigning the mail body. The chance to see the text correctly with PGP/MIME is much higher and the email is better structured, aka more clearly structured. Therefore '''we suggest to give the old format a different name: "no-mime signed"'''.
We will certainly use "no-mime" signature as a description of this less wanted method to sign a mail body contents everywhere. No-mime maybe a slightly better solution that just using attachments for email communication, but at least its name is more intuitive.
- Example:
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is the text. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEXYZXYZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3. "double no-mime"
This is a new format to try out in GpgOL 1.2.0 for Outlook 2010 and 2013. The body text is included twice, so we call it "double no-mime". You can see its structure in the example.
- Example:
This is the Text -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- XYZXYZ <- contains "This is the Text" again, **unencrypted** -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
- Advantage:
- works with PGP and CMS (less enconding problems).
- Possible disadvantage:
- Other clients do not display the contained text, but the surrounding text instead.
We will seek feedback on this and will evaluate if this new format is an improvement or not. And we may remove it again in GpgOL.