E-Mail Encryption: Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?
Sun Nov 17 23:27:02 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 17 Nov 2002 3:52 am, carl w spitzer wrote:
> Why not leave GNUPG as a console app and write shells separately?
> We have shells going back to win311 for PGP 2.6.x
We're not suggesting that this should not happen, merely that the "front=20
ends" should be true front ends through which all the functions of GPG=20
can be accessed, not just Key Managers.
With the advent of KGPG, we're well on the way in Linux to the=20
equivalent of Window's GPGShell, and its to be welcomed. But GPA and=20
the like do not claim to be any more than Key Managers (and out of date=20
at that), and when you look at the various shells for PGP 2.6.x in Win=20
3.11, they were much more than Key Managers.
GPG Keys at email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----