On 3/03/11 3:17 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>
> The premise (more or less) was that a guy named Martin (RM) was on a
> mailing list and signed all his mail. After some time, a new guy
> (FM) shows up and claims that he is, in fact, Martin. FM may have
> his own key or may not have a key at all. It do
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 1/03/11 9:33 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>>
>> That experiment, while interesting, is not relevant to the "real
>> Martin" / "fake Martin" situation we've been talking about. If both
>> Real Martin and Fake Martin have the same secret key, then the
On 2/03/11 8:20 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>
> Of course, my experience is from a time when UTF-8 wasn't used in email.
> But do the standard mail clients (Outlook, GMail, Thunderbird) really
> default to UTF-8 nowadays? Expecting people to properly configure their
> mail clients is an unrealistic
On 1/03/11 9:33 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>
> That experiment, while interesting, is not relevant to the "real
> Martin" / "fake Martin" situation we've been talking about. If both
> Real Martin and Fake Martin have the same secret key, then there is
> no way to tell them apart using signatures.
Han
On Sunday 27 February 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 02:04, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 26, 2011, MFPA wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >>
> >> On Friday 25 February 2011 at 1:45:03 AM, in
> >>
> >> , Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> >>> Yikes! I thought we were almost done killing in
Op 28-2-2011 23:23, Robert J. Hansen schreef:
> He then learned that his users thought the banner across the top was
> "just another one of those annoying Flash ads," and they tuned it out.
Their senses were dulled by overadvertising. He had better also
distributed Adblock Plus to try to counter
On 2/28/11 12:10 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> Well, I suppose that's up to you whether you want to trust RM or not.
> A question on trustworthiness is outside crypto, and not what the
> discussion was about here in any event.
First it was, "even signatures from non-validated keys belonging to
non-trust
On Feb 28, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/28/11 12:10 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> Well, I suppose that's up to you whether you want to trust RM or not.
>> A question on trustworthiness is outside crypto, and not what the
>> discussion was about here in any event.
>
> First it was,
On Feb 28, 2011, at 4:59 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> It is reasonable
>> that if someone was being masqueraded, that person
>> would speak up and challenge the forger (e.g. "Hey,
>> you're not Martin! I'm the real Martin, and I can
>> prove it by signing this message with the same key I've
>> used all alo
On 2/28/11 4:59 PM, MFPA wrote:
> I'm sure Martin would have something to say *if* he
> spotted his key's signature on messages he didn't write...
Yes: but I suspect that may be a big "if." If you see a message is
signed by an unknown key 0xDEADBEEF, do you really notice the 0xDEADBEEF
and go, "h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 28 February 2011 at 3:02:08 AM, in
, David Shaw
wrote:
> It is reasonable
> that if someone was being masqueraded, that person
> would speak up and challenge the forger (e.g. "Hey,
> you're not Martin! I'm the real Martin, and I can
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:58:02AM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/28/11 10:13 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > If a key has falsified signatures, it should be easy enough to find out.
>
> Why?
>
> I have never understood the tendency of people, particularly on this
> list, to assume that peopl
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/28/11 9:12 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> In this particular case, though, key signatures aren't even necessary
>> - RM just needs to prove that he is the same entity that signed the
>> other messages to the list. That is, he's "real" in the
On 2/28/11 9:12 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> In this particular case, though, key signatures aren't even necessary
> - RM just needs to prove that he is the same entity that signed the
> other messages to the list. That is, he's "real" in the sense that
> he is the Martin that the list knows and has be
On 2/28/11 10:13 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> If a key has falsified signatures, it should be easy enough to find out.
Why?
I have never understood the tendency of people, particularly on this
list, to assume that people who are technologically skilled and up to no
good will not devote more than th
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:12:33AM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> Unfortunately, barring the case where you have an actual trust path to either
> Martin, key signatures don't tell you much. After all, FM could easily make
> up dozens of fake people keys and use them to sign his key.
Yes. Understood
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 08:27 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> FM: [message]
>> RM: Hey, that's not me! I'm me. See? I've signed this with the same cert
>> I've used for everything else on this list.
>> FM: No, I'm the real Martin. I didn't sign up for
On 02/27/2011 08:27 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> FM: [message]
> RM: Hey, that's not me! I'm me. See? I've signed this with the same cert
> I've used for everything else on this list.
> FM: No, I'm the real Martin. I didn't sign up for this mailing list until
> last week. You signed up here
On 28/02/11 4:35 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 11:48 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>>
>> Heh. Are you aiming for some kind of simultaneously expired and
>> accepted key? Schrödinger's Key, if you will.
>>
>
> Yep, basically I will set my key to expire one day later and push it
> to the keyser
On 02/27/2011 11:48 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 28/02/11 2:59 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>>
>> I've been toying with the idea of expiring my key and seeing how
>> long it takes for anyone to notice. In fact, I've just decided I
>> will do this sometime in the next year. It'll be interesting to see
>
On 28/02/11 2:59 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>
> I've been toying with the idea of expiring my key and seeing how
> long it takes for anyone to notice. In fact, I've just decided I
> will do this sometime in the next year. It'll be interesting to see
> how long it takes people to notice even after I'
On Feb 27, 2011, at 8:35 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:17 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>
>> Can I see the HCI study that MIME attachments confuse people? ;)
>
> I would love to see such a study. However, I never made that claim. :)
>
> Someone else made the claim PGP/MIME is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 28-02-2011 0:27, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
...
> Then we're at an impasse, because that claim wouldn't fly with me. Let's
> imagine Fake-Martin and Real-Martin (FM and RM).
>
>
> FM: [message]
> RM: Hey, that's not me! I'm me. See? I've si
> Please post this bit of useful details to the "Android PGP/MIME test
> results" thread started by Grant Olson, which actually has an acceptable
> signal-to-noise ratio.
As I have said a few times now, I have been out of town at a funeral. I have
just now returned and am for the most part exhau
On 02/27/2011 10:22 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 28/02/11 2:02 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>>
>> I'm not at all surprised that you had those results. A limited
>> subset of people have support for OpenPGP signatures. A limited
>> subset of those people actually verify signatures. A limited subset
>> o
On 02/27/2011 08:31 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> the default mail app on a Verizon Droid X running Android 2.2 has broken MIME
> support.
Please post this bit of useful details to the "Android PGP/MIME test
results" thread started by Grant Olson, which actually has an acceptable
signal-to-noise
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> I think we're missing each other here. We have Martin (the real one), the
>> fake Martin (let's call him "Marty"), and various other people on a mailing
>> list. Martin always signs his messages. One day Marty shows up and tries
>> to
> I think we're missing each other here. We have Martin (the real one), the
> fake Martin (let's call him "Marty"), and various other people on a mailing
> list. Martin always signs his messages. One day Marty shows up and tries to
> pretend to be Martin. Martin, not wanting someone else to
On 28/02/11 2:02 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>
> I'm not at all surprised that you had those results. A limited
> subset of people have support for OpenPGP signatures. A limited
> subset of those people actually verify signatures. A limited subset
> of those people actually pay attention to what thos
On 28/02/11 12:35 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:17 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>
>> Can I see the HCI study that MIME attachments confuse people? ;)
>
> I would love to see such a study. However, I never made that claim. :)
>
> Someone else made the claim PGP/MIME is superio
On Feb 27, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> I disagree with this. Obviously a bad signature doesn't say much (except
>> perhaps "check your mail system - it's breaking things"), but there is still
>> value in the continuity between multiple signed messages. It's important to
>> no
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> I'm not at all surprised that you had those results. A limited subset of
>> people have support for OpenPGP signatures. A limited subset of those
>> people actually verify signatures. A limited subset of those people
>> actually pay at
> I'm not at all surprised that you had those results. A limited subset of
> people have support for OpenPGP signatures. A limited subset of those people
> actually verify signatures. A limited subset of those people actually pay
> attention to what those signatures say.
Yes: but one would h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 27-02-2011 20:54, Jean-David Beyer escribió:
> Faramir wrote:
...
>>IMHO they would be even more confused if they can read the message.
>> And some others see the attached signatures and think "Virus! Hit
>> delete, hit delete!".
...
>
> If s
> I disagree with this. Obviously a bad signature doesn't say much (except
> perhaps "check your mail system - it's breaking things"), but there is still
> value in the continuity between multiple signed messages. It's important to
> not make of that more than it is: for all I know there are 2
On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:17 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> Can I see the HCI study that MIME attachments confuse people? ;)
I would love to see such a study. However, I never made that claim. :)
Someone else made the claim PGP/MIME is superior because inline OpenPGP
signatures confuse people. Okay, I
> PGP/MIME (rfc2015, 1996) is not required to display signed MOSS mails.
> We should expect that 1847 has been implemented in any MIME aware MUA;
> in particular as it seems that S/MIME, which is also based on MOSS, does
> work.
"Should" usually just means "I want." The world should be a just pla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Faramir wrote:
> El 27-02-2011 15:30, Martin Gollowitzer escribió:
>> * David Tomaschik [110227 19:22]:
>>> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
>> 100% agreed. Thank you!
>
>IMHO they would be even more confus
On 02/27/2011 11:36, Werner Koch wrote:
Hi,
I once hoped the discussion about MIME vs. crufty inline signatures has
been settled a long time ago.
I love/admire your optimism. :)
Today that even Microsoft Outlook handles
it correctly for more than 7 years, the new excuse seems to be some
bugg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 27-02-2011 15:30, Martin Gollowitzer escribió:
> * David Tomaschik [110227 19:22]:
>> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
>
> 100% agreed. Thank you!
IMHO they would be even more confused if they can read
On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/27/11 2:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
>> I sign *all* my e-mail except for messages sent from my mobile (in that
>> case, my signature tells the receiver why the message is not signed and
>> offers the receiver to request a signed proo
On 02/27/2011 00:25, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
* Doug Barton [110227 05:30]:
If you look at the characteristics of the actual messages encrypted mail
is very similar whether it's in-line or MIME. It's signed messages that
make things interesting because the signature in a MIME message is
actual
On 02/27/2011 02:04, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2011, MFPA wrote:
Hi
On Friday 25 February 2011 at 1:45:03 AM, in
, Jameson Rollins wrote:
Yikes! I thought we were almost done killing inline
signatures! Don't revive it now!
If PGP/MIME is broken on android, we need to g
On 02/27/2011 12:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> I sign *all* my e-mail except for messages sent from my mobile (in that
> case, my signature tells the receiver why the message is not signed and
> offers the receiver to request a signed proof of authenticity later) or
> messages to people who ca
On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>>> 2. And seeing strange MIME attachments doesn't confuse people?
>>
>> Less than strange text fragments at the head and the bottom of a message
>> (Some people even think they are being spammed when they see inline PGP
>> data), because an a
y key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9
From: David Tomaschik
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:13:26 -0500
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME considered harmful for mobile
> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anythin
fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9
From: "Robert J. Hansen"
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:21:35 -0500
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME considered harmful for mobile
> On 2/26/11 9:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> > http://
On Sunday 27 February 2011, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> David Tomaschik wrote:
> >How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about
> >OpenPGP"?
>
> Meh. If anything, inline signatures sparked conversation.
Yeah. I think we should stop this pointless discussion. I doubt that any
person
On 2/27/11 2:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> I sign *all* my e-mail except for messages sent from my mobile (in that
> case, my signature tells the receiver why the message is not signed and
> offers the receiver to request a signed proof of authenticity later) or
> messages to people who can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/27/2011 02:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> * Robert J. Hansen [110227 20:28]:
>>> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
>>
>> 1. Why are you sending them signed emails anyway?
>
> I sign *all* my e-mail
Hi,
I once hoped the discussion about MIME vs. crufty inline signatures has
been settled a long time ago. Today that even Microsoft Outlook handles
it correctly for more than 7 years, the new excuse seems to be some
buggy new mail applications. I don't buy such an excuse. MIME is so
primitive a
* Robert J. Hansen [110227 20:28]:
> > How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
>
> 1. Why are you sending them signed emails anyway?
I sign *all* my e-mail except for messages sent from my mobile (in that
case, my signature tells the receiver why the message is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Tomaschik wrote:
>How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about
>OpenPGP"?
Meh. If anything, inline signatures sparked conversation.
- --
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-BEGIN PGP SIG
On 2/27/11 1:13 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
1. Why are you sending them signed emails anyway?
2. And seeing strange MIME attachments doesn't confuse people?
___
Gnupg-users mai
* David Tomaschik [110227 19:22]:
> How about "inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP"?
100% agreed. Thank you!
Martin
pgpOXtxwgzgho.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.g
On 02/27/2011 12:21 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/26/11 9:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
>> http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
>
> * IT DOESN'T HANDLE ATTACHMENTS. That's fine with me: 95%+ of my
> messages don't require attachments. Any technology that can hit 95% o
On 2/26/11 9:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
* IT DOESN'T HANDLE ATTACHMENTS. That's fine with me: 95%+ of my
messages don't require attachments. Any technology that can hit 95% of
the use case is fine by me.
* IT DOESN'T LIKE CHARACTE
On Saturday, February 26, 2011, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Friday 25 February 2011 at 1:45:03 AM, in
>
> , Jameson Rollins wrote:
> > Yikes! I thought we were almost done killing inline
> > signatures! Don't revive it now!
> >
> > If PGP/MIME is broken on android, we need to get them
> > to fi
* Doug Barton [110227 05:30]:
> If you look at the characteristics of the actual messages encrypted mail
> is very similar whether it's in-line or MIME. It's signed messages that
> make things interesting because the signature in a MIME message is
> actually (sort of) an attachment but also sor
On 27/02/11 3:28 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> If you look at the characteristics of the actual messages encrypted
> mail is very similar whether it's in-line or MIME.
Exactly, the encrypted output in both methods uses base-64 encoding.
> It's signed messages that make things interesting because th
On 02/26/2011 18:53, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 27/02/11 1:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:02:08 -0500, Avi wrote:
Why? Inline is simple and effective. I'm curious as to why you
feel MIME is so much better.
http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
Thanks
On 27/02/11 1:24 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:02:08 -0500, Avi wrote:
>> Why? Inline is simple and effective. I'm curious as to why you
>> feel MIME is so much better.
>
> http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
Thanks for the link.
I'd only add that i
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 21:02:08 -0500, Avi wrote:
> Why? Inline is simple and effective. I'm curious as to why you
> feel MIME is so much better.
http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html
jamie.
pgpha2dSJArgJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
9 Avi (Wikimedia-related key)
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9
From: Martin Gollowitzer
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:56:21 +0100
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME considered harmful for mobile (Jameson Rollins)
> * A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 25 February 2011 at 1:45:03 AM, in
, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> Yikes! I thought we were almost done killing inline
> signatures! Don't revive it now!
> If PGP/MIME is broken on android, we need to get them
> to fix it, not go backw
On 02/24/2011 11:43 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> My problem is reproducible on a stock Droid X running 2.2.something --
> just got off a very long flight, funeral in the morning: I'll dig the
> precise version number tomorrow.
So, I've been doing some triaging to see if I can reproduce this on
ot
On 2/25/2011 12:56 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> * Avi [110225 19:21]:
>> For those of us who use webmail, inline signatures are rather
>> useful.
>
> There are webmail applications supporting PGP/MIME. If yours doesn't, it
> is not a good one. Inline signatures are not a good thing IMHO.
>
>
On 02/25/2011 01:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> Sorry for the misunderstanding: The message body is being displayed, but
> the signature is not verified. K9 is the only e-mail client for Android
> that I consider usable.
I just received corroboration of a successful read (albeit without
signat
* Avi [110225 19:21]:
> For those of us who use webmail, inline signatures are rather
> useful.
There are webmail applications supporting PGP/MIME. If yours doesn't, it
is not a good one. Inline signatures are not a good thing IMHO.
Martin
pgpPpk4wPE5Xj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_
* Daniel Kahn Gillmor [110225 18:31]:
> On 02/25/2011 12:11 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> > * Patrick Brunschwig [110225 10:10]:
> >> The only mail client on Android I know of to handle OpenPGP messages is
> >> K9 (together with APG). But K9 only supports inline-PGP, PGP/MIME
> >> messages are
)
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9
-- Forwarded message --
> From: Jameson Rollins
> To: "Robert J. Hansen" , gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:45:03 -0800
> Subject: Re: PGP/MIME considered harmf
On Feb 25, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 02/25/2011 12:11 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
>> * Patrick Brunschwig [110225 10:10]:
>>> The only mail client on Android I know of to handle OpenPGP messages is
>>> K9 (together with APG). But K9 only supports inline-PGP, PGP/MIME
>>
* Robert J. Hansen [110225 07:47]:
> > There are good reasons to prefer a PGP/MIME and S/MIME signature
> > standards over inline PGP.
>
> And vice-versa. In inline's defense, it *works*, and PGP/MIME often
> doesn't.
Maybe one should think about *why* this is the case. Nevertheless, your
state
On 02/25/2011 12:11 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> * Patrick Brunschwig [110225 10:10]:
>> The only mail client on Android I know of to handle OpenPGP messages is
>> K9 (together with APG). But K9 only supports inline-PGP, PGP/MIME
>> messages are not displayed.
>
> This is true, but K9 at least
* Patrick Brunschwig [110225 10:10]:
> On 25.02.11 07:43, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > On 2/24/11 10:15 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> my colleague is using the application named "email", version 2.2.2 on a
> >> stock 2.2.1 motorola droid.
> >
> > My problem is reproducible on a stock Droid X
On 25.02.11 07:43, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/24/11 10:15 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> my colleague is using the application named "email", version 2.2.2 on a
>> stock 2.2.1 motorola droid.
>
> My problem is reproducible on a stock Droid X running 2.2.something --
> just got off a very lo
On 25/02/11 07:43, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/24/11 10:15 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> my colleague is using the application named "email", version 2.2.2 on a
>> stock 2.2.1 motorola droid.
> My problem is reproducible on a stock Droid X running 2.2.something --
> just got off a very long
On 2/25/11 12:37 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> There are good reasons to prefer a PGP/MIME and S/MIME signature
> standards over inline PGP.
And vice-versa. In inline's defense, it *works*, and PGP/MIME often
doesn't.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gn
On 2/24/11 10:15 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> my colleague is using the application named "email", version 2.2.2 on a
> stock 2.2.1 motorola droid.
My problem is reproducible on a stock Droid X running 2.2.something --
just got off a very long flight, funeral in the morning: I'll dig the
preci
On 2/24/11 8:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> thanks for the heads-up, Robert. I'm assuming you're talking about
> PGP/MIME signed mail, not encrypted mail.
Correct.
> Has this been reported to wherever this mailreader tracks their bugs?
> if so, could you provide a link to the bug report? I
On 02/24/2011 11:15 PM, M.R. wrote:
> On 02/25/2011 03:15 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> I do *not* consider PGP/MIME harmful for mobile.
>
> They might not be harmfull for ~your~ mobile...
heh. i don't have a "mobile", so i can guarantee that :)
> Any mail with attachments is likely to be h
On 02/25/2011 03:15 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I do *not* consider PGP/MIME harmful for mobile.
They might not be harmfull for ~your~ mobile...
Any mail with attachments is likely to be harmful for mobile.
You just don't know what device and what program will be used to
read your mail and
On 02/24/2011 08:22 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On Android's mail application, PGP/MIME attachments are nigh-unusable.
> It won't render even the plaintext portions: it has to be downloaded and
> opened with a text reader. If you're concerned about your mail being
> readable on a mobile device (
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:22:03PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On Android's mail application, PGP/MIME attachments are nigh-unusable.
> It won't render even the plaintext portions: it has to be downloaded and
> opened with a text reader. If you're concerned about your mail being
> readable on
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:22:03 -0500, "Robert J. Hansen"
wrote:
> Just as an FYI to the list --
>
> On Android's mail application, PGP/MIME attachments are nigh-unusable.
> It won't render even the plaintext portions: it has to be downloaded and
> opened with a text reader. If you're concerned ab
On 02/24/2011 08:22 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On Android's mail application, PGP/MIME attachments are nigh-unusable.
> It won't render even the plaintext portions: it has to be downloaded and
> opened with a text reader. If you're concerned about your mail being
> readable on a mobile device (
Just as an FYI to the list --
On Android's mail application, PGP/MIME attachments are nigh-unusable.
It won't render even the plaintext portions: it has to be downloaded and
opened with a text reader. If you're concerned about your mail being
readable on a mobile device (which is increasingly imp
87 matches
Mail list logo
