On 1999.12.31, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shannon Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nobody here can help those organizations or individuals who have chosen to
> limit themselves to "easy" software; all we can do is make sure that when
> they step into the light there's a sane alternative ;)
It's not always their choice, just as it's not my choice to communicate
with such users. If John Bull must use Eudora, and I must write him
email, and we must authenticate one another's messages, we have a
legitimate problem no matter what moral stance I personally take about
MIME or mutt's preferred standard documents. A workable solution WILL
arise, no matter whether the common law adopts MIME or inline PGP
documents today. We only look like childish whiners to block
compatibility on such grounds. It's certainly unproductive to
characterize those who find themselves in this position as "lusers" and
to deny them any accomodations.
I am not arguing that mutt should send the inline PGP messages by
default, only that it should support reading them because they're so
very common, and until they are not. (I won't argue that mutt should
support sending old-style PGP messages as long as hooks and macros
support this....)
PGP was "public-key cryptography for the masses", not "public-key
cryptography for those who have the wisdom and the freedom to use the
protocols and applications I think are worthy of tolerance." Why not
support that? I don't think that handling only those modes we'd rather
see in use is very positive toward PGP itself.
--
-D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I now seek a single recipe which will ... embody the
NS/ENSA plight of man in a world ruled by an unfeeling God, as
Networking Services well as providing the eater with at least one
Uchicago.Com ingredient from each of the four basic food groups."
