On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 09:48:00AM -0700, brian moore wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 11:38:32PM -0700, rex wrote:
>
>> Let's face it, PGP is far more important to freedom than Mutt, and
>> intentionally making PGP harder to use is a serious mistake.
>
> In retrospect, I was way wrong: except for abominations like MS Word
> documents, MIME has worked out pretty well.
>
> The same can be said of PGP-MIME -- it works great with mail clients
> that support it (Eudora, for example). For those who can't handle it
> (like some of us could just barely handle MIME a few years ago), you may
> have to be nice and not do it as PGP-MIME, but just as you would have
> encouraged people that only had uudecode for binaries to upgrade their
> software, you should encourage those stuck without PGP-MIME to upgrade
> to something that supports it.
I'm not complaining about MIME, or PGP-MIME, but rather the lack of
backwards compatibility in Mutt for the PGP message format used for
years. I simply want to communicate with people who work for a very
large corporation and who cannot, practically speaking, change the MUA
dictated by the corporation. I don't mind -- too much -- having to
spend a couple of hours reading enough about procmail to get it
working, because it's a useful program for other things as well, but
now I've got to mess around and waste more of my time so I can send
the old PGP format. Yes, it's probably simple, but the same thing
can be said for the hundreds of "simple" configurations one must
do to get a Linux system running smoothly. Add them all up, and
you've got information overload -- at least I do.
On a related note, does anyone have Mutt seamlessly working with
remailer traffic? It uses multiple layers of encryption and it's all
old-style PGP AFAIK. I'm thinking of something with the functionality
of Potato (for DOS). I'm aware of premail, but have not installed it.
Any help appreciated.
-rex
