"People often suggest that inline PGP signatures in e-mail are somehow more compatible or more acceptable than using PGP/MIME. This is a mistake. Inline PGP signatures are prone to several failure modes, up to and including undetectable message tampering."
Nope. it IS more compatible. With old clients, etc.
That's confusing being more compatible and being safer. That's not the same thing.
I want to second that. I switched from PGP/MIME to inline PGP a while ago, since multiple of my contacts complained about troubles reading mails.
K-9 on android does not have support for PGP/MIME, probably wont have it for the time to come as it requires fundamental changes in the way the program stores the mails. There doesn't seem to be any open-source mail app on android that can handle PGP/MIME (correct me if I am wrong, I really like to know)
Windows Mail displays the mail's content as an attached text file, which is quite inconvenient.
On the plus side, several web clients I have encountered are now able to handle it. So there is hope.
One webclient that handles it well is roundcube (http://roundcube.net/). Others I have seen are the web interfaces of mail providers (i.e. posteo.de), which deploy their own webmail software, or strip all attribution from the user interface.
To be clear: I am talking of displaying a PGP/MIME mail correctly. I am not talking about verifying a signature or composing a signed/encrypted mail (which you probably shouldn't do in a web client anyway). Inline PGP is neither parsed nor recognized.
Nope. it IS more compatible. With old clients, etc.
That's confusing being more compatible and being safer. That's not the same thing.