| Darxus on Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:50:35 -0400 |
|
On 06/18, Mike Pflugfelder wrote: > Are GPG and PGP different solutions? Are the compatible? They are two programs that do the same thing, and are compatible with each other (can verify/decrypt stuff signed/encrypted by each other). > Does PLUG use GPG? To me, it seems that way. "...PLUG is definitely the most 'crypto-aware' LUG that I know of..." - Greg Sabino Mullane, of the biglumber.com keysigning coordination site, 4/23/02 This was referring to or GPG/PGP usage. I prefer GPG. It... is better in some ways. > Where could I go to get software to integrate into Outlook? (It's my primary > MUA) I believe PGP has a graphical version that integrates nicely into outlook. You probably want to go here: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp-form.html The problem with this is, I believe it doesn't even let you know that RFC compliant email signatures (like the ones created using mutt) are present, let alone attempt to verify them. Other mail clients have problems verifying RFC compliant mail signatures, but the rest at least let you see that the signature attachment is there. MS Outlook is bad. You should use mutt under Linux instead. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw http://www.ChaosReigns.com Attachment:
pgpkJ96V0pVg8.pgp
|
|