I won't dispute any of the article's technical points, and I once used attached signatures for similar reasons.
But I will point out that attached signatures are unusable because you get never-ending replies from people asking what the file you attached is, why can't they open it, is it a virus, did it cause this computer problem of theirs, etc. Yes, theoretically there will one day be sufficiently clever email clients, but it's been something like twenty years and there has been nearly zero progress.
With inline signatures I could add a comment that said "If you don't know what this is, it's OK to ignore it".
Technical merits are meaningless if human factors make a security feature too confusing or hard to use. For proof of this, run 'man gpg' and then look at what percent of your inbox is signed/encrypted.
But I will point out that attached signatures are unusable because you get never-ending replies from people asking what the file you attached is, why can't they open it, is it a virus, did it cause this computer problem of theirs, etc. Yes, theoretically there will one day be sufficiently clever email clients, but it's been something like twenty years and there has been nearly zero progress.
With inline signatures I could add a comment that said "If you don't know what this is, it's OK to ignore it".
Technical merits are meaningless if human factors make a security feature too confusing or hard to use. For proof of this, run 'man gpg' and then look at what percent of your inbox is signed/encrypted.