E-Mail Encryption: Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?

Graham graham.todd@ntlworld.com
Fri Oct 25 06:28:02 2002

Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 24 Oct 2002 4:59 pm, Kai Raven wrote:

> But on the other side, all MUAs under Linux have a good support for
> all necessary GnuPG functions=20

No, they are adequate for encryption and signing, decryption and=20
verifying emails, nothing more.  I have not yet seen any MUA which=20
would allow me to locally sign a key and update trust....which are=20
"necessary" GPG functions

>and for the rest i think, the most
> Linux users are using the shell or scripts so the most of them don't
> need any GnuPG GUI like WinPT or GPGshell.=20

The original question is: why isn't everybody encrypting or signing=20
mails, and the original poster indicated that the interface was=20
confusing.  I expressed a view that (in Windows) the interface is=20
adequate but in Linux it is far from adequate.  Because most users of=20
GPG in Linux use the CLI at present (indeed they have to for most=20
things), it doesn't mean that its adequate or that more people wouldn't=20
use it through a GUI.  I personally think people are entitled to the=20
choice, and I would like to see a GUI front end for GPG in Linux=20
through which ALL the functions of GPG are accessed.

>You are switching from
> Windows to Linux? You have to learn & love the console - sooner or
> later ;o))

No, I've switched (over a year ago) and I use Linux exclusively.  I=20
enjoy the ease and speed of the console for some things and not for=20
others.  I would like to see a GUI for GPG...its that simple.

- --=20

Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy