pgp/mime vs in-line pgp

[Doug Barton]

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

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Len Sassaman wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Pine is under a "non-free" license, and
> > > the Pine authors have repeatedly rejected such patches.
> >
> > One could argue that large parts of this thread have been off topic for
> > this list, however I'm firmly of the opinion that the type of political
> > rhetoric about licenses that you've stated here is definitely off topic,
> > and personally I'd appreciate it if it was just skipped altogether.
>
> It is fortunate then that your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

Um, ok, thanks for that. My point is simply that arguing about whether
Pine's license is "Free" or not, in my opinion, is not on topic here. As
a member of the list I'm simply making a request, which you are of
course free to disregard.

> > > They have no interest in OpenPGP support, period.
> >
> > I'm not sure this is accurate either, or at least I think you're being
> > too specific by mentioning OpenPGP. It would be safer to say that PGP
> > integration in general has not been a goal for the Pine development
> > team, and that it's handled fairly well by a variety of third party
> > plugins.
>
> It is handled horribly. Show me one good plugin that supports PGP well.

Well I'm biased, but you can find mine at
http://dougbarton.net/FreeBSD/Downloads/. I think that "well" is a
relative term here, and I'm sure that you will find things in that
package that you won't like. :)

> > In regards to the MIME issue, Pine doesn't give the user the ability to
> > manipulate attachments at all, so you can't create PGP MIME messages.
>
> A major flaw in Pine.

Personally I don't miss it, but YMMV.

> > therefore need to find valid solutions. If you are not in that group,
> > lucky you, but telling those of us who are that our concerns are
> > pointless isn't really useful.
>
> When did I ever say anything about pointless?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring here to the thread in general, not
replying directly to you.

> I am a Pine user. I believe Mutt to be greatly at fault for much of the
> PGP/MIME issues, by their repeated propaganda attempts to convince PGP
> users that inline-signatures are "old-style" or "deprecated" in favor of
> the PGP/MIME format (originally devised by the author of Mutt,
> surprisingly enough.)

I agree, I find that rhetoric inappropriate and pretty much non-useful.
The topic of in line signatures was discussed on the list recently, so I
won't rehash that here.

Doug

- -- 
	If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAfb8GyIakK9Wy8PsRAmriAJ42xB7aZtOqC0RJd9EIMxzMPN4OggCg/OE+
7WjZaoiGMGzMCAVstmrOxKA=
=Dj4S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----