Evolution signatures

Eugene Smiley eugene@esmiley.net
Tue Aug 5 01:07:02 2003

Hash: SHA1

Carl L. Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:09, Kyle Hasselbacher wrote:
>> Inability to read and write inline PGP is the reason I've
>> dismissed Evolution every time I've considered using it.
> Yes, here I am all changed over to evolution only to run into this
> mess.  I think the explanations are cop outs at best.  How is
> enigmail managing to handle this?  What about the rest?  I know
> their are issues.  I have experienced them.  But rudimentary plain
> text signatures would be an acceptable solution.  Just say inline
> is unsupported, then sneak in a basic verify on simple plain text
> emails.  Forget all the complicated stuff.  Get me to where
> enigmail is and I am happy.

The people who use the arguement that inline-PGP is deprecated or that
a MUA that supports inlined and not PGP/MIME is broken are spouting
nonsense. It's a matter of the lowest common denominator, which is
inlined-PGP. More clients support inlined-PGP than PGP/MIME.

Once the balance shifts to PGP/MIME, then they can say what they want,
but with Microsoft's MAUs being used on more desktops, either the
community causes them to get updated or the community gets them replaced.

Now don't get me wrong. I think PGP/MIME is the bomb, but for those
with MAU's that aren't PGP/MIME compatible verifying the sig is a
royal pain (as compared to verifying inlined).

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-nr2 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org