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

[Graham]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 25 Oct 2002 8:30 am, David Pic=F3n =C1lvarez wrote:

> Now, I agree that encrypt/decrypt and sign/verify are not the only
> things you need to do with gnupg. However, I must say, it is
> completely alien to my sense of design to put those things in a MUA.
> The use of a MUA is to ssend and receive e-mail and interface with
> things like gnupg or s/mime or things that in some way "touch" the
> mail so you don't have to do it yourself. A MUA is not a PKI
> solution.=20
[snipped]

AGREED!  That's why I want a GUI to GPG and NOT have it in an MUA.  I=20
was answering a post from somebody that said the GUI in an MUA was=20
sufficient.  It is only sufficient for sending/receiving encrypted or=20
signed messages.

GPG does far more than this.  At present it only has a CLI; I would like=20
to see a GUI interface for these functions, even if in a different=20
package that interfaces with GPG.

[snipped]

> Let us recapitulate here. 1) You think the Windows interface is
> adequate. 2) You think the Linux interface is not.=20

No, lets's get this correct.  The CLI in both Windows and Linux is NOT=20
adequate for people to intuitively use it IMO.  PGP has an edequate GUI=20
in Windows that could be improved, and both GPGShell and WinPT in=20
Windows are fairly adequate GUI front ends for GPG.  They are more or=20
less intuitive and GPGShell can allow access to virtually all the=20
functions of GPG.  In Linux, there is no GUI to GPG, adequate or=20
otherwise.

>Let us pose this
> question: what's the proportion of Windows gnupg users against Linux
> gnupg users? Obviously, considering the difference in market share. I
> hope the point is seen. Most Linux users, at least most of those I
> know, aren't bothered by CLIs and use them extensively. Moreover, to
> use the word confusing on a CLI is an incredible overstatement.

I don't agree.  There are more PGP users in the Windows environment than=20
GPG users because PGP has an approachable program with an intuitive=20
GUI.  The number of Windows GPG users is growing...because there is an=20
adequate GUI for it and reasonable support for GPGShell in other=20
mailing lists and newsgroups.  The problem for me is that neither=20
GPGShell or PGP is open source.  The CLI is confusing to people coming=20
to Linux from Windows, although you have to learn to live with it. But=20
I am not asking for GPG users in Linux to abandon the CLI, I simply=20
want an adequate GUI to GPG as well so that it can be used by those=20
(like me) who prefer it.

- --=20

Graham
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy

iD8DBQE9uQoeIwtBZOk1250RAmRjAKDMFI2rHE4OMeutsqkJ4jamOYYqpQCdHvQ1
cyBOPjMu6Tp3z6jj8Da0hzU=3D
=3Da0sb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----