st the latest manifestation.
Like others, we looked around and found something that worked better.
My thanks to Mr. Hansen for updating our listing.
Jeff Allen, PGPNET moderator
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 17:20 +0200, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote on 18.10.2019 16:02:
> [...]
> > My take on your original explanation of the reason for Enigmail's
> > pending demise is that a changed Thunderbird plug-in scheme makes
>
hem myself. My take on your original
explanation of the reason for Enigmail's pending demise is that a
changed Thunderbird plug-in scheme makes it more efficient to build
Enigmail functionality into the MUA. Why not stick with that and focus
on what has made Enigmail successful?
Jeff Al
On 10/14/19 3:40 AM, Binarus wrote:
>
> On 13.10.2019 22:27, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> On 10/13/19 2:21 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>>> The vast majority of users of Enigmail (somewhere around 98%) don't use
>>> external built keys.
>>
>
er"
thread are any indication, you'll be looking at quite a few back sides.
Is there any reason to think that folks who object to easy-to-use
proprietary encrypted email solutions from ProtonMail and Tutanota will
embrace a proprietary encrypted email
On 10/9/2019 Tony Lane wrote:
> On 10/8/19 9:21 AM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Sure it's a solution. I have accounts at both. Most of my email is not
>> encrypted because, as the original poster pointed out, most people I
>> communicate with are not particul
On 10/7/19 4:59 PM, Sheogorath via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 9/30/19 4:38 PM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 4:58 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:
>>> Dear GNUPG developers,
>>>
>>> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
>>
>>> 3/ Please d
On 10/5/19 6:15 AM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
>> But go ahead, please rationalize why "ease-of-use" is more important than
>> actual security for power-users such as myself and those who absolutely won't
>> compromise on true E2EE.
>
> Not to rain yo
On 9/30/19 4:58 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:
> Dear GNUPG developers,
>
> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
> 3/ Please do appreciate that the persons who we are convincing and
> instructing are not particularly interested in privacy. They need simple
> approaches.
ProtonMail or Tutanota. Both e
On 5/5/19 4:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Don't you think that brute-forcing a hash of a phone number would be
> trivial?
>
It would be more trivial not to hash the number and say you did.
ProtonMail claims they hash the number and store it unlinked to your
account. Their stated objective is t
On 5/5/19 1:36 PM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2019 11:22:56 -0400
> Tony Lane wrote:
>
>> Isn't it obvious?
>
> I don't think so! Users new to privacy related
> services may think when visiting the ProtonMail
> site that they are anonymous, when seeing their
> main page:
>
> https://pr
11 matches
Mail list logo
