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

List:       sylpheed
Subject:    [sylpheed:26101] Re: Encrypting attachments
From:       Colin Leroy <colin () colino ! net>
Date:       2005-10-26 9:52:28
Message-ID: 20051026095339.CCAE010334 () paperstreet ! colino ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On 26 Oct 2005 at 11h10, Godwin Stewart wrote:

Hi, 

> The fact that some people use an inferior MUA is not my problem. If
> they really want to communicate not just with me but with everyone I
> know who uses standards-compliant software, then they'd better step
> out of the stone age and become *former* OE/OL users.

I can't agree more, but we should not forget the part of our userbase
that _has_ to work with business contacts forced to use Microsoft's
shit by their sysadmin. The different solutions to this are:

* stop doing business with them, good luck explaining that to your boss
* use the same shit as your contacts do, good luck enjoying your tools
* use what you want, but deal with pgp/inline.

I personnaly feel the third solution is the best one, or rather the
'least worst' ;-)

But, back on the topic, the original poster should know that using
pgp/inline has drawbacks, one of them being mails with cryptic stuff
visible, another being you don't get to sign or encrypt the
attachments. And I don't see how to fix it, nor do I think it is really
important...

-- 
Colin

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