On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 07:12:14PM -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote: > I have the patch installed. That was my earlier solution to this > problem. But I want to avoid PGP traditinal because it's deprecated. I > don't like the idea of holding back progress because Microsoft couldn't be > bothered to support a standard. So instead I'm switching to PGP/MIME and > just not signing the emails going to Outlook users. As a former Pine user, I really find this argument irritating. The fact is there are LOTS of clients which don't handle PGP-MIME, and in many cases they aren't likely to any time soon. The reason has to do with international laws regarding encrpytion... Exporting encryption software is generally illegal in the US, though restrictions have been relaxed recently, but the fear among some is that they will be reinstituted at some not-so-distant future date. Also using encryption software is illegal in some countries, so some development teams refuse to add encryptions support, not unreasonably. Pine is one example of another popular mailer (which doesn't suck) that doesn't have PGP-MIME support, and probably never will. This is the major reason I switched to mutt, but unfortunately not everyone has that luxury... The fact is, most of the PGP-using world still uses traditional PGP (though PGP-MIME /is/ getting a lot more common), partly because everyone else does, and partly because it's easy to use with clients that don't directly support it. The RFCs may call traditional PGP "deprecated", but from the standpoint of practicality that's just silly. And if you want to keep signing your messges to that list, there's no reason you can't have a send-hook set pgp_traditional instead of not signing the messages... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgptY9nTt7Mjm.pgp
Description: PGP signature