Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release

Wed Sep 26 15:41:01 2001

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:44:48PM +0100, Owen Blacker wrote:

> > So I should disable one feature in my MUA (it is not PGP
> > or GPG that is configured to verify automatically)
> > because some people just do not want to make a fair and
> > rational use of digital signatures.
> So I should disable part of the way I communicate
> electronically and not avail myself of one of the
> advantages of cryptography because some people just don't
> wish to ~request~ the validation of signatures and insist
> on doing them all automatically?
No, you shoul not disable anything, just use things as intended. I=B4m not going to convince you to stop toying around, as you care not for anything but your whimming attitude.
> I do think that authenticating everything I say is fair an
> rational. Further, it makes a point to people who don't
> know much about cryptography, that maybe they should do.
Yes, by trying to stick cryptography into their noses.
> > Ok, just hope you get the same type of responses to your
> > problems through life, as you just deserve them.
> We could phrase inflammatory questions at each other for a
> very long time. Personally, I have better things to do, I
> would assume you probably do too. I don't really think
> there's any other option here than agree to disagree, in
> silence.
No flaming there, I truly hope it.
> > > > I see, meaning you don=B4t give a monkey=B4s ass whether
> > > > it=B4s a bother for subscribers or not???
> > >
> > > Frankly, no I don't. Let me restate, I firmly believe
> > > that all mail should be signed. I also believe that
> > > all mail should be encrypted, irrespective of how
> > > secret people want to keep the contents. I militantly
> > > believe that ~all~ communications should be encrypted.
> > > Then messages that are won't look out of place. The
> > > only problem is that it's a lot more hassle persuading
> > > everyone I know to install gpg in order to read my
> > > mails...
> >
> > See, some people firmly believe that all persons should
> > be straight. They are on their own right. But they
> > would be wrong if they went trying to impose those
> > beliefs in any way whatsoever to those who are different
> > or think different.
> But I'm not imposing anything on anyone.
That=B4s your saying, and yet people who think and act like you do slow down my reading of mail at mailing lists by forcing the opening of a process for no useful reason.
> You're trying to impose on me that I can't sign every mail
> I send, because you don't want to wait a couple of seconds
> for my signature to validate.
> Again, we can phrase these questions in as inflammatory a
> fashion as you like. I don't think either of us is being
> particularly constructive on this matter by discussing it
> further -- we disagree on a fundamental point and neither
> of us is likely to persuade the other.
Your right to free roaming ends at the point where my right to choose freely starts. If you don=B4t want to respect mine, fine, but don=B4t expect me to be content nor to respect yours.
> > If you really want to advocate crypto on mail, you could
> > do things like adding your fingerprint at the bottom of
> > messages after your non-digital sig, or a page explaing
> > why it should always be used and a pointer to that page
> > at the bottom of your messages.
> But neither of these performs the function of a digital
> signature. Part of the reason I sign almost every mail I
> send is to avail myself of that functionality.
For practical purposes it performs exactly the same function: showing that you have a public key.
> > > I disagree that it is like those at all. And, tbh, I'm
> > > not sure that I'd find a small vCard attachment an
> > > annoyance, or Ascii art, for that matter, but I don't
> > > use them because it's accepted netiquette. I just
> > > don't feel that digital signatures are the same thing.
> >
> > Alright. I can=B4t say more about this if your rule for
> > measuring is that of acceptance.
> Again, you're verging on the inflammatory. I made two
> points here, firstly that I think it's an unfair comparison
> and secondly that, as it happens, I don't find the things
> you mentioned an annoyance. THe first was more objective
> than the second, which was intended to be subjective
> opinion.
Perhaps you are going through some of those days where some ppl feel very sensitive about things. Sorry, but I couldn=B4t care less as you care not for what I consider to be an annoyance. Of course you don=B4t find it an annoyance! You are the one who annoys others with it! You want to apply your personal view for right and wrong, and then want to be selective about where should your view apply and where not? That would be fine if it didn=B4t bump on others=B4 views. And though it is still fine, but then don=B4t ask others to give you what you are not willing give. --=20 Horacio