On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 10:48:05AM +0900, Derek Martin wrote: >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... Hmm, I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Why would export restrictions on encryption make it any more difficult for an MUA to support PGP/MIME? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://magnus.therning.org/ Hard work may not kill me, but why take the chance.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature