On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:58:56AM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote: > 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? I guess I need to make this plain: It's not my reasoning. Some development teams have avoided the potentially murky area of encryption software by not only not doing encryption internally, but also not supporting the use of external programs to decrypt e-mail. http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley/pine/faq/security.html#PGP I have, in the past, come across more verbose versions of this argument which indicate that in some localities, it may not be clear what constitutes encryption software (i.e. code used to call external encryption software might be considered encryption software). Whether you agree with their reasoning or not (I don't), I think their decision is reasonable, under the "better safe than sorry" principle. However, I heard rumors that recent versions of Pine (will?) have PGP support, including PGP-MIME. Don't have a clue if it's true, and don't particularly care. But given the number of people who still use inline PGP, and who have no other choice, for one reason or another, I think shrugging off inline PGP is a naive mistake. -- 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:
pgpJX8Q12ecp9.pgp
Description: PGP signature