gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:46:36 -0400


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Email encryption


On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 01:09:10PM -0400, Darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> Okay, I just remember co-workers using outlook at a previous employer
> having difficulty with email I sent them from mutt.

I'm speaking to Outlook 2000, as it's all I've used (at work). Not
that I think the support is adequate, but I haven't gotten around to
switching all the groupware functionality of Exchange over, on the
client side, to Unix stuff. (I don't just want to use something like
Evolution; the point of my not liking Outlook mostly has to do with
the GUI interface.)

> 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.

Fair enough. Even in that respect, Outlook's a lot better than it
used to be. In any case, its killer app isn't "email" (honestly,
it's email implementation still sucks: even people who've never used
a Unix-like MTA get irritated by the difficulty of being forced into
top-replies without a good way to split out responses to specific
parts of the emails to which one is replying) but "groupware" (and,
in all fairness, it does a pretty slick job at that).

> I have a procmail rule that converts clearsigned messages to RFC compliant
> signatures.  Anybody see flaws in this calculation ?

Not really. At the least, it's got to be pretty close to correct.

I'd also be interested to see a grep -c '^Version: GnuPG' versus a
grep -c '^Version: PGP'. (I'd check myself, but I only retain list
mail when it's something relevant to my life. :^>)

-- 
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

Attachment: pgpRwMSSTuxaO.pgp
Description: PGP signature