Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 184, Issue 22

Stefan Claas sac at
Mon Feb 4 16:48:30 CET 2019

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 23:38:35 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Well, i can only say last time i used PGPfone was in 2014, with a friend.
> > We both used a website that showed us our IP addresses and it worked
> > fine. We only had to set UDP port 17447 in our routers, for incoming
> > and outgoing connections.  
> "All you had to do" was:
> (a) understand computer networking well enough to understand what you
> needed to do,
> (b) know your router could be used to do port forwarding,
> (c) log into your router, navigate bad UX,
> (d) probably switch your DHCP allocation to a static one, so you
> wouldn't have to do this again every time you acquired a new DHCP lease,
> (e) and on and on and on.
> No, PGPfone was not "easier to use".  The skills required to use it were
> far in excess of what most users possessed.
> I get that you liked PGPfone.  Nothing wrong with that.  But there are
> good reasons it failed to get traction in the privacy community, most of
> them revolving around user-unfriendliness and inconvenience.

With all due respect,

my friend has no crypto experience at all and also noodles not around with
network settings, but found PGPfone easy to use as well. 

But people with Windows boxes can tryout themselves and ask themselves
why it was not further developed for the (Linux) community ...

And if it is really so hard to use, like you wan't to make people believe, then
one can pick-up the development idea from my previous posting and provide
us with a solution that uses .onion addresses, like Onionshare does. ;-)


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list