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

On Tuesday 30 October 2001 13:23, Marc Mutz wrote:
> Karl-Heinz' proposal to make one kpgp and one gpgme-based crypto
> plugin is a good one, IMO. What I meant originally was that if we
> wanted to unify their approach with ours, then it would mean to adopt
> the gpgme interface for kpgp and _that_, in turn would lead to a
> major rewrite. If we keep 'em separate, then PGPi users will have
> reduced functionality (e.g., they couldn't use S/MIME besides OpenPGP,
> even if they have gpgme, too.)

If they have reduced functionality and want to use the full potential=20
they'd have to switch from PGP to GnuPG. I don't think that's to bad.=20
;-)

> What does everyone think?

Sound good.

Regards,
Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE73yzVGnR+RTDgudgRAi3JAKDbuR3JRUCxPn6pyUPw3QUHi4fHWQCfe4il
ekyzr0PQwhCLKyj6mvocZdE=3D
=3DiOOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
kmail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail