MSGID: 2:221/1.58@fidonet f8336022
PID: OpenXP/5.0.51 (Win32)
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: -0500
A recent exchange of encrypted mail with a friend who uses a  
few different programs to process encrytped mail (Claws, K9,  
and P=P) led to interesting discoveries of pgp/inline vs pgp/ 
mime.

For instance, the Pgpg app on my Blackberry (BB) only supports  
pgp/inline.  This has lead to the recipient unable to properly  
verify my signature.

My friend writes:

"A couple of things that I earned from this investigation:

"a) pgp/inline is not very robust - there are some interesting points at this
URL

  https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/notes/inline-pgp-harmful/

"b) K9 does autocrypt signing - I don't remember if BB deals with it properly,
but this provides the signing at the header level, and gpg is definitely
OK with that approach. OKC is likely the same.

"c) gpg cannot seem to deal FULLY with either the signed output of the BB,
or the signed output of Claws.

"I suspect that since neither Claws or BB do autocrypt signing, we won't get
this resolved.

"That is a different beast from what is traditionally to be used for
pgp/inline,
and apparently something in our path is screwing up the signature when it is
not in the autocrypt header.

I'm not TOO overly concerned about the Pgpg app on my  
Blackberry (BB) to be limited to pgp/inline since I would  
primarily use it to preview/read an encrypted message. I can  
use OpenKeyChain to preview/read multipart mime encrypted  
messages.
--
  ../|ug
--- OpenXP 5.0.51
 * Origin:  (2:221/1.58)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 15/0 30/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 120/340
SEEN-BY: 123/131 129/305 153/7715 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/1 6 360
SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/424 426 428 452 550 664 700 240/1120 5832
SEEN-BY: 249/206 317 400 266/512 280/464 5003 282/464 1038 292/854
SEEN-BY: 301/0 1 101 113 123 317/3 320/219 322/757 335/364 342/200
SEEN-BY: 396/45 423/81 633/280 712/848 920/1 5020/1042 5058/104
PATH: 221/1 301/1 229/426