OpenPGP vs inline PGP

John B
Fri Jul 11 04:02:02 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 10 July 2003 18:03, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2003 15:22, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > Variety is the spice of life.
> > >
> > > We don't share the same view.  To me, it works or it doesn't.  Its
> > > secure or it isn't, etc.   I think I'll wait until this has been iron=
> > > out a bit more before trying to deploy it.
> >
> > You need a challenge. Go to it!
> >
> > Don't you enjoy this admin lark anymore?
> I have a real-world job function as well.  This has become the second 16
> hours of each workday.
> I don't need a challenge.  I need results.  The only reason I even
> attempted this was to have a way to verify these @#$%&!& detached
> signatures.  I shouldn't really clutter up this list with this any furthe=

  Now you're just getting nasty. What makes you think you're the only one w=
a "real-world job function"? There's plenty of folk tackling this situation=
you have, on their own, and sticking with it, who also have jobs. Hell...*I=
have absolutely no experience doing admin work, but since I'm the *only*=20
person that uses this home system with SuSE 8.2 on it, I had to figure out=
how to get the opengpg plug-in to work on my kmail by myself...and a few=20
questions in an SuSE mailing list. One thing no one seemed to know about=20
(including myself of course), was that I was always trying to make the=20
plug-in 'active', plus I'd never typed in a 'name' (all this in the kmail=20
security setup section, gui), so I tried once more with a name and didn't=20
activate it...HA! I now have openpgp compatibility. (I was rather proud of=
myself for doing it on my own, heh)

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)