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