[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: PGP 2 support
From:       Seth Kurtzberg <seth () cql ! com>
Date:       2001-10-30 8:40:12
[Download RAW message or body]

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

Let's use some common sense here.  It isn't possible to satisfy every user's 
preference; not because that user isn't important, but because resources are 
always limited.  In this case it is impossible to please everyone; someone 
pointed out that some user's would abandon kmail; I would indeed abondon it 
myself if a giant security vulnerablility is introduced for a trivial 
increase in ease of use.  (Like everything else, you could argue about 
whether this is a security vulnerability; I believe that it is. 

Finally, let's not take things personally.  The kmail developers are doing a 
great job.  I use kmail for all my mail, and I receive thousands of email 
messages sometimes.  Kmail has never crashed on me.  (Are there features I'd 
like to see in kmail?  Sure.  Are they important?  No.

On Monday 29 October 2001 23:52, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> Hi Ingo and hi all!
>
> On Monday 29 October 2001 21:53, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Monday 29 October 2001 17:01, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:34:08 +0200, Marc Mutz said:
> > > > > Since gpgme will do so much for us in the next release (S/MIME
> > > > > and OpenPGP), would it be acceptable to drop PGPi support for a
> > > > > version or two until we have either a gpgme backend, or a new
> > > > > kpgp, which does not
> > > >
> > > > I assume PGPi is support for pgp 2.
> > > >
> > > > PGP 2 has a couple of security problems which have benn addressed
> > > > with OpenPGP, so I am in favor of dropping PGP 2 support entirely.
> > > > It is qpossible to verify PGP 2 created message using GnuPG without
> > > > any hassles.
> > >
> > > The Ägypten-Projekt is about Free Software only.
> > > Supporting PGP is beyond is outside of the project's scope.
> > > Personally I also think it is the wrong signal to further support
> > > pgp or patented algorithms of any kind.
> >
> > We already support PGP 2 since ages. So I really don't know what you all
> > are talking about. You said you wanted to implement S/MIME support for
> > KMail. Fine! Please do so! But please stop telling us that we should
>
> ...
>
> Excuse me for intefrering here but unfortunately the Bad Thing[TM] seem
> to have happened here:
>
>    Our (mine and others of the Ägypten team) somewhat unhappy way
>    of explaining our concept _did_ lead to a misunderstanding both
>    superfluous and frustrating:
>
>    Please believe me that it is _not_ our idea to tell you what you
>    have to do!
>
>    What we would like to do concerning the status quo is simple:
>
>    *  Take the current PGP related implementation in KMail and have it
>       - without taking away anything - encapsulated in a little Plug-In.
>
>    *  Test this Plug-In to make sure everything works fine.
>
>    *  Remove the current PGP related implementation from KMail,
>       but _do_ _not_ remove the little PGP Plug-In!
>
>    * Design our "Gpg Plug-In"
>    ...
>
>    By doing we will end up having _two_ options: either use the old
>    solution and be happy with it OR use the "Gpg Plug-In".
>
>    Switching from one to the other is extremely easy: just one mouse
>    click on the Plug-In registration page of Settings/Configure dialog.
>
> Also, to really make sure we are _not_ telling you what you 'should' do,
> there is another option that you of course are free to choose: you could
> still add functionallity to the existing PGP solution and let users
> access this by choosing the traditional way (by selecting that Plug-In).
>
> So there are two important things:
>
> A) We will not remove anything!
>
> B) Even if the new "Gpg Plug-In" is going to cover most of the
>    PGP support that is currently in KMail it will _not_ do things
>    that encourage users to software restricted by patents.
>
> IMHO Werner is allowed to decide how he is going to enhance Gpg.
>
> There are actually two ways how to prevent KMail from loosing
> functionality: either the way we will go anyway (by transforming
> the status quo into a Plug-In) or the way mentioned by Werner
> in another mail: just write a little wrapper emulating GnuPG -
> this would be an easy job.
>
> > remove support for other encryption protocols/programs.
>
> I hope is was successfull in making clear that we do _not_ intent to
> do this - nor did we ever!
>
> > If you don't like it please feel free to make your own version of
> > KMail.
>
> Ingo, please, there is no need to address us like this: beginning with
> our very first mail here we tried to make clear that we want to be both
> helpfull and cooperative to/with the community.
>
> We will definitely not fork, this option just is non-existent for a
> project that is going to _support_ the free software community.
>
> But what we do (as you have the same right) is 'fight' for our arguments
> and I am sure we will find good compromises where ever our opinions
> collide.
>
> > After all KMail is a piece of Free Software although it supports the
> > usage of non-free software which AFAIK isn't forbidden by the GPL, is it?
> >
> > Nobody of us likes patented algorithms -- well, at least me -- so please
> > don't get us wrong. But we are not going to remove support for PGP 2
> > just because you have a problem with this.
>
> And we do _not_ force you to do so!
>
> All we do is saying: /We/ are not going to actively support that, but
> we keep it as it is so _you_ are free to continue supporting it.
>
> > Sorry, for being rude but this discussion ends here.
>
> Are you sure that this 'end' is neccessary?
>
> We are still in the middle of the discussion: this mail of mine just
> tries to make our position clear because I found it somewhat difficult
> so interpret our different postings correctly.
>
> We are not presenting an ultimatum - we are just inviting for discussion
> - so let us continue 'fighting' for our respective points of view: the
> fact that I often do not aggree to other people's opinion does _not_ mean
> that I stop holding them in high esteem!
>
> In fact (due to our great respect for your Free Software Developers' work)
> this Plug-In concept was in our plans and documents from the very beginning
> of thinking about participating in the Ägypten contest of the german
> government: For us it was absolutely clear that existing funcionality
> _must_ not be removed - we are not about to kill functionallity but to add!
>
>
> Karl-Heinz
>
> PS: Please don't mix up "fighting for our ideas"
>     with "giving orders" - we are _not_ trying to command.  :)

- -- 
Seth Kurtzberg
Machine Independent Software
Office:  (480) 661-1849
Fax: (480) 614-8909
email:  seth@cql.com
pager:  888-605-9296 or email 6059296@skytel.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBO95nbHhkmRgYZUCaEQI6ZQCfZmfS+qJuyCw9QnSsg68UDTlvS2YAn03f
K65x/ov8ycE6TJKOxf3UR6CA
=IQTA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
kmail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]