| gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:01:23 -0400 |
|
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:49:33PM -0400, Darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote: > 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. That's not true. PGP's plugin for outlook successfully verifies RFC-compliant OpenPGP signatures. It doesn't deal at all with encrypted messages unless they're ASCII-armored, though. > MS Outlook is bad. You should use mutt under Linux instead. This is a terrible answer. If encryption is still too difficult to use that people can't use it in whatever (otherwise flawed) MUA they like, then we're doing something wrong. It is precisely the hordes of Outlook users who need to be persuaded to use PKI encryption and authentication all the time on every message in order to show how ridiculous government actions against strong crypto really are. Without the masses using it, it's just a fringe society that cares about their privacy, and they (we) can be silenced. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpUreymWEAHs.pgp
|
|