| Darxus on Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:09:29 -0400 |
|
On 06/18, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: > 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. Okay, I just remember co-workers using outlook at a previous employer having difficulty with email I sent them from mutt. > > MS Outlook is bad. You should use mutt under Linux instead. > > This is a terrible answer. If encryption is still too difficult to This wasn't an answer to anything. I agree that gpg should be made useable for as many people as possible, including with outlook. The statement was just my strong opinions on mail clients in general. To the question of how much PLUG uses GPG/PGP, it looks like 32.4% posts to this list have been signed since Sun, 2 Jun 2002 12:32:39 est. $ grep -c '^Sender: plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org' IN.plug 577 $ grep -c '^Content-Type: application/pgp-signature' IN.plug 186 I have a procmail rule that converts clearsigned messages to RFC compliant signatures. Anybody see flaws in this calculation ? -- "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:
pgp3rGGJR1cjM.pgp
|
|