PGP/MIME use

[MichaelQuigley at TheWay.Org]

gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org wrote on 02/01/2012 10:51:46 AM:
> ----- Message from "Robert J. Hansen" <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> on Wed, 
> 01 Feb 2012 11:19:08 -0500 -----
> 
> To:
> 
> gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> 
> Subject:
> 
> Re: PGP/MIME use
> 
> On 2/1/12 10:47 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> > Of course not. I just don't believe that there are many examples of
> > this type out there. To me a serious user is one who actively signs,
> > encrypts, and/or verifies data and knows what he is doing. He has
> > created a key and verified at least one. Everything else seems like
> > special use to me.
> 
> Then yes, you are selecting for email users.  There are quite a lot of
> people who use GnuPG primarily for themselves -- for instance, a system
> administrator who signs each backup, a lawyer who encrypts files when in
> transit on a flash drive, etc.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of the users you see are using email, yes, but
> only because email is the method by which you come to see them.  Users
> who never announce their usage (the system administrator, the lawyer,
> etc.) are completely invisible to you.
> 

I would be one who fits in the other case.  I've never signed an 
e-mail--no one at our organization does.  (Not that I wouldn't like to, 
but nearly all those with whom I communicate wouldn't have any use for nor 
comprehension of the signature.)  However, I've written scripts to 
routinely sign files for transmission to our bank.  I would definitely 
count us as serious users.  We would be very upset if the bank started 
rejecting transmissions due to the lack of a valid signature.  Seeing that 
our bank is a very large one, I'm sure there are plenty of others who also 
sign their business transmissions using GPG.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20120201/6bc24d1b/attachment.htm>