Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release

[Horacio]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:00:40AM +0200, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
>=20
> On Mittwoch, 26. September 2001 15:38, Horacio wrote:
> > 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.
>=20
> Maybe you shouldn't be using this MTA if it slows down your
> reading so much just because of signed messages.

Ok, while comparisons are not always fair, sometimes can be
used as a means to make someone understanding.  Let=B4s try
this simple one:

A car horn is meant to be used for warning against and
accident.  Yet, many people make an abusive use of it.  I
hate that.  But, does it mean that I should cover my ears to
avoid hearing it?  Being able to hearing the horn when a car
is bumping into me is far more important.

I know that I=B4m left no choice but to put up with it, but at
least I have the right to complain about some people=B4s bad
mannered and uncivilized behaviour.  Obviously, neither you
nor Owen will think it is uncivilized (ok, now I=B4m back to
signatures here), since you seem to enjoy it.  Perhaps
uncivilized is a word fit for the example, but not for the
abuse of digital signatures... let=B4s just say bad mannered
and selfish.

> Alternatively you could write a procmail filter which
> removes signatures from messages send to mailing lists. As
> you are using mutt (at least that's what your X-Mailer
> header tells me) it's very likely that you are using
> procmail already to convert inlined signatures to PGP/MIME
> signatures. So why not simply remove signatures from
> mailing list messages.

No, just because it would strip the useless signatures as
well as the useful ones.

> > Of course you don=B4t find it an annoyance!  You are the
> > one who annoys others with it!
>=20
> You shouldn't generalise your opinion to others. Owen
> doesn't annoy me.  But of course I'm guilty of the same
> crime. :-)

I=B4m not, in fact I presume there are people who are annoyed
with it and others who are not (e.g. all of you who, imo,
(ab)?use it).  I didn=B4t use "others" to mean "everyone".  As
with everything else in life, there is enough people to stand
in one side and the opposite.


--=20
Horacio